Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin
Oil Palm India Ltd, Kottayam vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 February, 2012

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM and B.R.BASKARAN, AM

I.T.A No. 378/Coch/2010

Assessment Year: 2007-08

The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Oil Palm India Ltd., PB. No. Income-tax, Circle-1, Kottayam 1715, Kottyam South P.O.Kottayam.

[PAN: AAACO 3695G]

(Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee -Respondent)

Assessee by Smt. Preetha S. Nair, Adv.

Revenue by Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jr. DR

Date of hearing 09/02/2012

Date of pronouncement 10/02/2012

ORDER

Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25-3-2010 passed by the Ld CIT(A)-IV, Kochi and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are related to a single issue, viz., about the deductibility of agricultural income tax while computing the income.

3. We have heard the parties on this issue. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had also preferred an appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the said appeal has since been disposed of by the Tribunal. She further submitted that the assessee had also challenged the order of Ld CIT(A) on the impugned issue raised by the revenue and the Tribunal has set aside the same to the file of the Ld. 2 I.T.A. No. 378/Coch/2010.

CIT(A), since the first appellate authority had failed to dispose of the same, though it was agitated before him. The Ld. AR also produced a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal of the assessee numbered as I.T.A. No. 381/Coch/2001.

4. We notice that the assessee had raised the impugned issue of deduction of agricultural income tax as an additional ground and the same was admitted by the Tribunal and it was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by the tribunal:- "After hearing Smt. Preetha S.Nair, ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR Dr. Babu Joseph, we are of the view that the additional ground as raised before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 16-02-2010 was not at all adjudicated. A photocopy of the same is placed at page 5 of the paper book. We have also perused. To meet the ends of justice, we admit this additional ground as it is a mistake as it was not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee failed to mention this in the regular grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. Since the ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to consider this additional ground, we remit this additional ground back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for decision in accordance with law, particularly the quantum of agricultural income-tax which was stated to be arrears has to be adjudicated with relevance to the rigor of section 43B for the amount of deduction. The ld. CIT(Appeals) should afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the ld. Sr. DR would submit that this is excess claim, for that there is no proof available on record. We are unable to accept the argument of the ld. SR. DR, as this was not the issue before us. As the ld. CIT(Appeals)failed to consider the additional ground, we confined ourselves to remit the additional ground to the file of the CIT(Appeals), who will decide the issue after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to both the parties. As the Revenue is also having an opportunity to put forth the case, whatever the objection of the Department may be put forth before the ld. CIT(Appeals)". 3 I.T.A. No. 378/Coch/2010.

5. Since the issue contested before us by the revenue has already been remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) by the Tribunal in the order passed in the assessee's appeal, we think it proper to set aside the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). As observed by the Tribunal, the department may advance their view point before Ld CIT(A). We order accordingly.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed.

Pronounced accordingly on 10-02-2012.

sd/- sd/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Place: Ernakulam

Dated: 10th February, 2012

GJ

Copy to:

1. M/s. Oil Palm India Ltd., PB. No. 1715, Kottyam South P.O.Kottayam.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Kottayam 3 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Kochi..

4. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kottayam.

5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin.

6.. Guard File.

By Order

(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR)

ITAT, COCHIN BENCH