Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Kone Elevators India (P) Ltd., Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 April, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH 'D' : CHENNAI
[BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
I.T.A No.1153/Mds/2010
Assessment year : 1998-99
The ACIT vs M/s Kone Elevators India (P) Ltd
Company Circle II(4) No.50-55, Vanagaram Road
Chennai Ananambakkam
Chennai 600 095
[PAN - AAACK2567P]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri K.E.B Rengarajan, Jr. Standing
Counsel
Respondent by : Ms. Sumitra Ravichandran
ORDER
PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue, for assessment year 1998-99, is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dated 14.4.2010.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was passed on 7.3.2005. This assessment order was held as ab initio void by the ld. CIT(A), vide his order dated 17.2.2006. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal and the :- 2 -: ITA 1153/10 Tribunal vide its order dated 15.10.2007 quashed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed him to decide the issue afresh. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in I.T.A.No. 185/2005-06/A-III dated 14.4.2010. While giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A), the original assessment order has been modified. Aggrieved, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:
"1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case.
2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer on the issue relating to addition of royalty written back for the purpose of computing book profits.
2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to note that in the Assessment order it has been clearly stated that the provisions has been created by the assessee for the AY 1991-92 to 1997-98 and in those years and the same had been debited to the P&L A/c in the respective years.
2.3 The learned CIT(A) should have considered the fact that in the above circumstances as per explanation l(i) to Sec.115JA(2) when the royalty had been waived by the other party the same is clearly taxable in the assessee's hands.
2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the proviso to explanation 1(i) to Sec. 115JA(2) is not applicable to the assessee's case at all since the same speaks of any provision created on or after 1.4.1997 only whereas in the assessee's case the said provision was created prior to 1.4.1997.
3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in directing deletion of levy of interest u/s 234D.:- 3 -: ITA 1153/10
3.2 It is submitted that in this case the regular assessment has been completed for the first time on 07.3.2005 (ie, after 1.6.2003, the date on which section 2340 was introduced in the statute) and hence interest is leviable in respect of this Asst. Year also.
3.3 It is submitted that the decision of M/s.Sigma Aldrich Foreign Holding Company vs ACIT (104 ITO 95) supports the action of the Assessing Officer.
4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing officer restored. "
3. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been given effect to so, this appeal has become only of academic interest and stands allowed in view of the factual matrix.
4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (HARI OM MARATHA)
VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 22nd December, 10
RD :
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR