S.Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd, ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.1369&1370/Mum/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, where the facts and circumstances of the years under appeal are the same as those of a succeeding assessment year already decided in the assessee's favour on the disallowance of interest under Section 14A read with Section 36(1)(iii), restores the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of that earlier decision and the Commissioner's observations, rather than deciding the issue on its own merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सर्वश्री आय.सी.शभमव, रेखम सदस्म एवुं श्री संजम गगव, न्ममयमक सदस्म BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1369&1370/Mum/2012 ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1998-99 & 1999-2000) S.Kumar Enterprises Vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai (Synfabs) Ltd., Niranjan, Ground Floor, 99, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002 स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCS 4905 Q (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)
यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.P.Shroff यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip
सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date of Hearing : 25/03/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date of Pronouncement 08/04/2015
आदे श / O R D E R
PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of
CIT(A), for the A.Y.1998-99 & 1999-2000, in the matter of order passed
u/s.143(3) r.w.s147 of the I.T.Act.
2. The assessee is aggrieved for disallowance of interest in respect of
advances given by it.
3. Ld. AR placed on record order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in
assessee's own case for the assessment year 2000-2001, wherein the
issue regarding disallowance of interest was decided in favour of the
assessee. Relevant para 14 of the order dated 30-9-2008, reads as under
:-
2
ITA Nos.1369&1370/12
"14. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the learned CIT(A) examined the submissions of the assessee as well as the facts on record and the case laws relied upon by the assessee thoroughly before coming to a conclusion that the appellant had paid interest of Rs.1.35 crores on the loan of Rs.7.50 crores, being 18% p.a. to M/s S.Kumar Sufabs Ltd., which was taken by the assessee company during the A.Y.1994-95 for the purpose of business. During the AY 94-95, the assessee company did not invest any amount in the shares. Hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances case, we find that there is no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made of Rs.1,35,70,931/- u/s.14A r.w.s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue."
4. Ld. AR also placed on record the details of loans and advances
given as on 31-3-1998 and 31-3-1999 along with details of interest paid
during the years, and contended that no disallowance is warranted
u/s.14A r.w. Section 36(1)(iii) in terms of decision by ITAT in assessee's
own case.
5. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record
that disallowance of interest in both the years under consideration was
made on account of advances given to associate concerns. The issue
with regard to disallowance of such interest has been considered by the
Tribunal in assessee's own case in the immediate succeeding
assessment year 2000-2001 vide order dated 23-9-2008 and was decided
in favour of the assessee. As the facts and circumstances during the
years under consideration was alleged to be same, in the interest of
justice, we restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding afresh
keeping in view the observation made by CIT(A) vis-à-vis Tribunal in the
assessment year 2000-01 while deciding the issue of disallowance of 3 ITA Nos.1369&1370/12
interest u/s.14A read with Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, in favour of
assessee. We direct accordingly.
6. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/04/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (संजम गगव) (आय.सी.शभमव) (SANJAY GARG) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भंफ ु ई Mumbai; ददनमंक Dated 08/04/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, यन.स/ PS
आदे श की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीरमथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.
3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT आदे शािसार/ BY ORDER,
5. वर्बमगीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भंफ ु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गमर्व पमईर / Guard file.
उप/सहायक पुंजीकार सत्ममवऩत प्रयत //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free