Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 5 August, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH, 'I-1': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Miscellaneous Application No.555/Del/2019
(Arising out of ITA No.1909/DEL/2016)
[Assessment Year: 2011-12]
M/s Federal Mogul Goetze Assistant Commissioner of Income
(India) Limited, Tax,
Paras Twin Towers, 10th Floor, Vs Circle-9(1),
Tower-B, Golf Course Road, New Delhi
Sector-54, Gurgaon,
PAN-AAACG3769M
Assessee Revenue
Assessee by Sh. D.P. Singh, Adv.
Revenue by Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 08.07.2022
Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2022
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,
Earlier this Tribunal had passed an order in Miscellaneous Application No.555/Del/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12, vide order dated 23.09.2022. Through this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has requested to adjudicate the grounds no.6 and 7, which were filed as additional ground, which have remained unadjudicated. The Bench was informed that the assessee has withdrawn those grounds, therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee.
Miscellaneous Application No.555/Del/2019 M/s Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd.
2. The assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court vide decision dated 22.10.2021 in W.P.(C) NO.11330/2021, set-aside the Miscellaneous Application order of the ITAT and directed that the Tribunal be requested to take up the petitioner's appeal, insofar as the issues pertaining to grounds no. 6 and 7 are concerned and adjudicate upon the same after hearing the concerned parties and/or their authorized representative.
3. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this Miscellaneous Application was heard by us. In accordance with Hon'ble Delhi High Court direction, we recall the grounds no.6 & 7 in ITA No.1909/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The said grounds 6 & 7 as noted by the Hon'ble High Court read as under:-
"Ground No.6 The Ld. AO, on facts and in law, has erred in disallowing the advances written off amounting to INR,52,53,000 under the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act. In doing so, the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that such advances were given during the normal course of business and their subsequent non-recovery and consequent write-off in the books of accounts by the Appellant constituted a valid business expenditure to be allowed to the Appellant.
Ground No.7 7.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in not allowing additional MAT credit (amounting to INR 1,36,75,898) as claimed by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. In doing so, the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the aforesaid claim was a revision of an existing claim already claimed in the return of income, on account of an inadvertent error and not a fresh claim on account of omission on the part of the Appellant.2