Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Banpal Oil Chem Pvt.Ltd.,, Palanpur vs Acit, B.K.Circle,, Palanpur on 20 January, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "B" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ITA Nos.694 & 1200/Ahd/2014
(Assessment Year:2008-09)
Banpal Oil Chem Pvt. Ltd.,
7th Floor, Popular House, Ashram
Road, Ahmedabad - 380009 Appellant
Vs.
The ACIT,
Banaskantha Circle, Palanpur Respondent
PAN: AAACB8589Q
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : Shri P. B. Parmar, A.R.
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 10.01.2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 20.01.2017
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
These two assessee's appeals for assessment year 2008-09 arise against the CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad's different orders dated 13.12.2013 & 06.02.2014 in appeal nos. CIT(A)-I/AC.Cir.-BK-PLN/2013-14 and CIT(A)-I/AC.Cir.- ITA Nos. 694 & 1200/Ahd/2014 (Banpal Oil Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2008-09 -2- BK-PLN/125/2013-14 in proceedings under section 143(3) and Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act" respectively.
2. Both the learned representatives point out at the outset that the CIT(A)'s order in former appeal ITA No.694/Ahd/2014 stands rectified in his subsequent order dated 06.02.2014 forming subject matter of adjudication in latter appeal ITA No.1200/Ahd/2014. We thus treat the said latter appeal as the main case.
3. A perusal of the assessee's latter appeal hereinabove indicates that the same is time barred by 66 days in filing. The assessee-appellant has moved a condonation petition as well pleading therein that the CIT(A) has passed two different orders in the very lower appellate case creating a lot of confusion and communication gap in collecting necessary records and betting of the relevant papers. Learned Departmental Representative fails to controvert the said solemn affirmations. We thus condone the delay of 66 days in filing of ITA No.1200/Ahd/2014. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits.
4. The assessee's appeal ITA No.1200/Ahd/2014 contains three substantive grounds inter alia challenging the lower appellate order passed ex parte affirming Assessing Officer's action disallowing / adding Section 80IB deduction on DEPB sales amount of Rs.58,80,965/- and Section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 14A proportionate interest expenditure disallowance of Rs.27,27,514/-; respectively.
5. We come to the relevant basic facts first. The Assessing Officer completed a regular assessment in assessee company's case on 31.12.2010 ITA Nos. 694 & 1200/Ahd/2014 (Banpal Oil Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2008-09 -3- making the above two disallowances along with another head of insurance expenses of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) decided the same on 21.05.2012 remitting the issue back to Assessing Officer to only tax the income component arising on sale of DEPB instead of the entire consideration money and to verify as to whether the assessee had in fact utilized interest free sums in making the tax free investments in question or not. He however confirmed the last disallowance of insurance expenses.
6. The Assessing Officer took up consequential proceedings. He framed the impugned consequential assessment reiterating his earlier findings thereby citing assessee's failure in providing all necessary details of DEPB and interest figures in question. The CIT(A)'s order under challenge confirms the same mainly on the ground that the assessee had not filed the requisite details in consequential proceedings.
7. Heard both sides. Learned counsel representing assessee first of all invites our attention to assessee's additional evidence application stating therein that although it had to file the relevant details pertaining to DEPB sale amount vis-à-vis profit element involved therein as well as those relevant to the latter issue of Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance, it states that there had been lot of confusion in course of the lower appellate proceedings owing to which it could not place on record the same before the CIT(A). Learned counsel representing assessee then invites our attention to this tribunal's order in first round of cross appeals ITA No.1550 & 1683/Ahd/2012 filed against CIT(A)'s earlier order dated 21.05.2012 (supra). Learned counsel's case is that this tribunal has upheld CIT(A)'s directions to the Assessing Officer to tax only the income component arising from DEPB sale amount. He then takes us to tribunal's findings restoring the latter issue of Section ITA Nos. 694 & 1200/Ahd/2014 (Banpal Oil Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2008-09 -4- 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh decision. This is followed by co-ordinate bench findings restricting insurance disallowance sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- in the nature of Keymen Insurance Premium. Learned counsel accordingly states that the Assessing Officer is adjudicating the above issues once again as per tribunal's directions and it is therefore in larger interest of justice that its additional evidence deserves to be admitted. Learned Departmental Representative strongly supports the CIT(A)'s order upholding Assessing Officer's action for the reason that the assessee failed to produce all relevant details in consequential proceedings.
8. We have heard rival submissions. It has already come on record that the Assessing Officer is very much seized with the entire matter as per tribunal's earlier directions issued on 29.08.2016 so far as all the three issues of DEPB sale amount involving profit element, Section 36(1)(iii) interest amount and Keymen Insurance Premium disallowance amount restricted from Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- only in consequential proceedings. We thus feel that larger interest of justice in case the assessee's additional evidence in the nature of profit element on sale of DEPB alongwith documentary evidence in support thereof is admitted and the issue is remitted back to the assessing authority for adjudication. More so in view of the fact that even the Revenue has failed to pin point any prima facie error or relevance of assessee's additional evidence vis-a-vis the issues involved before us. We accordingly admit assessee's additional evidence and direct the Assessing Officer to frame consequential assessment as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA No.1200/Ahd/2014 is accepted for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 694 & 1200/Ahd/2014 (Banpal Oil Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2008-09 -5-
9. The assessee's former appeal ITA No.694/Ahd/2014 is dismissed as rendered infructuous and latter appeal ITA No.1200/Ahd/2014 is accepted for statistical purposes.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 20/01/2017
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आय!
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद /
DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।