Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dcit, Corporate Circle 6(2),, Chennai vs Symantec Software And Services India ... on 8 August, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य केसम'
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(व(वध या चकासं/ M.P. No.62/Chny/2019
(in I.T.A. No.33/Chny/2018)
नधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year : 2013-14
M/s Symantec Software & Services
India Pvt. Ltd.,
The Assistant Commissioner of 1/124, Shivaji Gardens,
Income Tax, v. DLF Info City, 5th floor,
Corporate Circle - 6(2), Block 1C, Moonlight Stop,
Chennai - 600 034. Nandambakkam,
Chennai - 600 089.
PAN : AAKCS 5422 K
(,ाथ)क/Petitioner) (,.यथ//Respondent)
,ाथ)क क1 ओरसे /Petitioner by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,
Addl.CIT
,.यथ/ क1 ओर से/Respondent by : None
सन
ु वाई क1 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02.08.2019
घोषणा क1 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2019
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The Revenue has filed the Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 05.10.2018.
2 M.P. No.62/Chny/19
2. No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice through Department. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the Miscellaneous Petition on merit.
3. Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that this Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer with regard to provision said to be made for payment of compensation. According to the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal found that the assessee has made only a provision and there was no actual payment, therefore, a mere provision made for future cannot be allowed. However, at para 9 on page 5, in the last line, instead of allowing, it was mentioned as "disallowed". This may be a typographical error. This is obvious from the harmonious reading of para 8 & 9.
4. Having heard the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that there is a typographical error in the last line of para 9 of the Tribunal order dated 05.10.2018. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., paras 8 and 9 shall be read harmoniously. This Tribunal specifically said that mere provision to meet the expenditure in future cannot be allowed while computing taxable income. It was also pointed out that it is 3 M.P. No.62/Chny/19 open to the assessee to claim the actual amount spent. Therefore, last sentence shall be "it cannot be allowed". However, typed as "it cannot be disallowed". Therefore, there is an error which is prima facie on record. Accordingly, it needs to be rectified.
5. At para 9, in the last line, the last word "disallowed" shall be deleted. Instead the following shall be inserted:-
"Allowed".
Now, the last sentence of para 9 shall be read as follows:-
"Therefore, this assessment year is concerned, it cannot be allowed."
6. The error pointed out by the Ld. D.R. is rectified accordingly.
7. With the above observation, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the court on 8th August, 2019 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(इंटूर रामा राव) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Inturi Rama Rao) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
8दनांक/Dated, the 8 August, 2019.
Kri.
4 M.P. No.62/Chny/19
आदे श क1 , त9ल(प अ:े(षत/Copy to:
1. ,ाथ)क/Petitioner
2. ,.यथ//Respondent
3. आयकर आयु;त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु;त/CIT
5. (वभागीय , त न ध/DR
6. गाड) फाईल/GF.