IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SHRI HARI
I.T.A .No-4577/Del./2012
ASSESSMENT YEAR -2008-09
M/s Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
NDSE, Part-II,
South Extension,
PAN-AAACM0878R
(APPELLANT)
Vs
ITO,
Ward-6(41,
(RESPONDENT)
Appellant by: Sh.
Respondent by: Ms.Y.Kakkar, DR
Date of Hearing:-30.10.2012
Date of Pronouncement:-31.10.2012
ORDER
This appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IX,
2. The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:-
(1) “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law upholding disallowance of actual incurred expenditure of Rs.3,20,514/- being the management fee paid to ICICI Prudential Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. during the year on the arbitrary ground.
(2) The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law in upholding disallowance the actual incurred expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd. on the arbitrary ground.
(3) The appellant seeks leave to add or to amend the foregoing grounds of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.”
3. The facts relating to 1st & 2nd grounds are that during the year relevant to the year under consideration, the assessee company had carried on the business of real estate and also transacted in shares and filed its return of income on 27.09.2008 declaring ‘Nil” income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.12.2010 at a total income of Rs.3,56.250/- in which following additions were made :-
i) Placement fee Rs.5,00,000/-
ii) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.4,35,969/-
iii) Depreciation on building Rs.4,39,266/-
iv) Misc. income Rs. 1,668/-
4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal and was not successful in getting any of the above additions deleted. The assessee is further aggrieved and has filed this second appeal. The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act. A revised computation of income was filed during assessment proceedings has claiming further deduction of Rs.3,20,514/- paid as management fee to ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited. The AO disallowed expense of Rs. 5 lacs, allegedly paid to Kotak Mahindra Capital company Limited, on the ground that this expenditure is not incurred in respect of the business of the assessee company. He did not entertain the claim of expense of Rs.3,20,514/- allegedly paid as management fees to ICICI Prudential Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that limit for filing revised return had already lapsed and, therefore such a belated claim was is maintainable. He has held that even on merits, this claim is not allowable because it is not related to business of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the AO, in the body of the assessment order, has himself admitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares and as such by holding that these expenses are not related to assessee’s business is contrary to the facts of the case. Regarding ICICI Prudential Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. Company to whom, a payment of Rs.3,20,514/- was made is concerned, it was submitted that this claim filed in revised return along with revised statement of statutory income in which the assessee surrendered depreciation of building which was wrongly claimed, has been accepted but he has not considered the claim of payments, so this is a paradoxical and unfair action of the AO. But the AO did not agreeable and has made both these additions. Before Ld. CIT(A), it was argued that when eligible claim could not be made within permitted time, the Appellate Authority has a power to entertain a valid claim in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision rendered in the case of GOETZE India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. But even Ld. CIT(A) has not agreed with this contention of the assessee and has approved AO’s action..
5. After hearing both sides in the light of the available records, I have found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order regarding the grounds raised before him. The order of Ld. CIT(A), insofar as her findings are concerned, falls in the definition of non-speaking order, therefore it becomes imperative and also justified, to restore the entire appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A), so that she can decide the issues afresh. The claim made through invalid revised return can also be considered in the light of GOETZE India Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
6. Accordingly, I set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the above said two issues with a direction that the Appellate Commissioner shall give opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I set aside the issues raised on merits without going into pedantic reasons.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the
Sd/-
(HARI
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated:
*Amit Kumar*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT,
