PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee filed the Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal dated 26.06.2015.
2. Sh. Saroj Kumar Parida, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that this Tribunal, at para 10 of its order dated
2 M.P. No.104/Mds/15 26.06.2015, found that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is an allowable business expenditure. This view was taken after considering the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10. According to the Ld. counsel, in fact, the assessee filed the appeal before this Tribunal, therefore, when the Tribunal found that the expenditure is an allowable expenditure, the appeal of the assessee ought to have been allowed. However, by mistake, the Tribunal concluded that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. This is only an error which needs to be rectified.
3. We have heard Sh. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. very fairly submitted that this Tribunal, in fact, by following its order for assessment year 2009-10, found that the payment for use of trademark is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee ought to have been allowed. This Tribunal, by mistake, mentioned that the order of the lower authority is confirmed. Therefore, it needs to be rectified.
4. Having heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative, this Tribunal, in respect of the disallowance of `1,80,98,708/-, which was the payment made to
3 M.P. No.104/Mds/15 M/s Redington Distribution Pvt. Ltd. for exploiting the trade mark, found that it is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the order of the lower authority ought to have been set aside and the addition needs to be deleted. This Tribunal, while finding that the expenditure is an allowable expenditure in view of the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10, however, confirmed the addition. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, this is an error which has crept in the order of the Tribunal and needs to be rectified. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 26.06.2015 is rectified as follows:- At page 5, para 10, the following sentences shall be deleted from 9th line from top: In view of the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. Instead, the following shall be inserted: In view of the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition.
4 M.P. No.104/Mds/15 The other part of the order remains as such.
5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 11th September, 2015 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (. ) (... ) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) /Accountant Member /Judicial Member /Chennai, 5/Dated, the 11th September, 2015. Kri. / *67 87/Copy to:
1. *'/Petitioner
2. *,-/Respondent
3. 9 ()/CIT(A)
4. 9/CIT
5. 7 * /DR
6. ' /GF.