Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

The Andhra Sugars Ltd. Tanuku () v. Acit Circle-1 Eluru ().

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Aug 30, 2011
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

M.A No. 35.Vizag/2011, (Arising out of ITA No. 162.Vizag/2007), Assessment Year: 2004-05 and M.A Nos. 36&37.Vizag/2011, (Arising out of ITA Nos. 365.V/2008 & 280.V/2009 respectively), Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively

Attorney(S)

Appellant by: Shri C.V.K Prasad, Advocate

Respondent by: Shri T.H.L Peter, CIT(DR)

JUDGES

Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M

B.R Baskaran, A.M

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

These miscellaneous applications were filed by the assessee challenging the consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.1.2011, on the ground that certain errors had crept into that Tribunal order and required rectification. Several common errors were identified across multiple miscellaneous petitions and were heard together, although the court decided to adjudicate them one after the other. The miscellaneous petitions considered in this opinion are M.P. No. 35/Vizag/2011, M.P. No. 36/Vizag/2011 and M.P. No. 37/Vizag/2011. The applications raised issues including (a) incorrect extraction from the CIT(A)'s order in the Tribunal's para 36, (b) alleged failure to consider that no expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income (section 14A), (c) observations regarding transfer/sale of power to other units at market price, (d) repetition of grounds in the Tribunal's order, (e) characterization of repair/renovation expenditures in various sugar units as capital (and consequent disallowance), and (f) a numeric transcription error relating to figures for the Sugar Division at Tanuku.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Tribunal's order of 20.1.2011 contained inadvertent extractive errors from the CIT(A)'s order (specifically in para 36) that required substitution/rectification.
  2. Whether the Tribunal correctly adjudicated and should be permitted to stand on the issue of disallowance of proportionate expenditure under section 14A of the Income-tax Act (i.e., whether expenditure attributable to exempt income such as dividends should be disallowed).
  3. Whether the Tribunal's observation that the assessee did not sell/transfer power to other units on market price was incorrect and required correction in the Tribunal's order (para 50).
  4. Whether repetition of grounds in the Tribunal's order (grounds 5 & 6) warranted deletion of duplicate paragraphs to avoid confusion.
  5. Whether expenditures on remodeling, renovation and repairs of acquired sugar units (Bhimadole, Tanuku) are capital in nature (and therefore not deductible) or revenue in nature (and therefore deductible), including whether production had commenced in the impugned assessment years.
  6. Whether a numerical transcription error in the Tribunal's order concerning figures for the Sugar Division (Tanuku) should be corrected (substitute Rs. 11,28,236/- with Rs. 1,16,20,789/-).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Assessee's) Arguments

  • In M.P. No. 35, the assessee argued that para 36 of the Tribunal's order incorrectly extracted paragraph 6.1 of the CIT(A)'s order which was not relevant to the issue (disallowance under section 14A); instead para 2.3 of the CIT(A) should have been extracted and substituted.
  • The assessee contended the Tribunal failed to take into account that no expenditure had been incurred to earn the dividend income, and therefore the disallowance under section 14A required rectification.
  • The assessee asserted that the Tribunal wrongly observed that power was not sold to other units at market price; the assessee stated that power was transferred/sold to its other units on market price and produced bills (Eastern Power Distribution Company) and rates to support this contention.
  • In M.Ps. 36 and 37, for issues relating to repairs/renovation at sugar divisions (Bhimadole, Tanuku), the assessee argued that production had commenced in the impugned assessment year(s) and therefore the expenditures should not be treated as capital (i.e., they should not be disallowed).
  • The assessee pointed out a transcription error in the Tribunal's order concerning the amount for items 1 to 18 at the Sugar Division (Tanuku) and requested substitution of the correct figure (Rs. 1,16,20,789/-) for the wrongly recorded Rs. 11,28,236/-.

Respondent's (Departmental Representative's) Arguments

  • The Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R.) submitted that the Tribunal had adjudicated the disallowance under section 14A after considering the rival contentions and thus the Tribunal's view could not be revisited by way of rectification.
  • Regarding the power-transfer issue, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the Tribunal did not make any conclusive finding but remanded the matter to the assessing officer (A.O.) for re-adjudication in the light of the assessee's submissions.
  • On the question of characterization of repairs/renovation (capital vs. revenue) for the sugar units, the Ld. D.R. submitted that nothing in the lower authorities' orders established that production had commenced in the impugned year; following the Tribunal's earlier approach in A.Y. 2004-05, the expenditures were treated as capital and disallowed.
  • With respect to the transcription error asserted by the assessee for Tanuku figures, the revenue accepted that an error in the figure existed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined each miscellaneous petition by comparing the Tribunal's consolidated order with the grounds raised in the miscellaneous applications and the relevant passages from the CIT(A)'s order and assessment records. The court's reasoning proceeded issue-by-issue as follows:

M.P. No. 35/Vizag/2011

  1. Extraction Error in Para 36: The court found that the Tribunal had inadvertently extracted an irrelevant portion (para 6.1) from the CIT(A)'s order in para 36 of the Tribunal's order. On comparison, the court concluded that the correct passage to be extracted was para 2.3 of the CIT(A). The court therefore substituted the wrongly extracted portion in para 36 by the following portion of CIT(A)'s para 2.3 (the court reproduced the CIT(A)'s observations and decisions in extenso in the record):
    “After hearing the learned authorized representative and on a careful consideration of the facts relating to the issue, the following observations made and decisions taken:— (i) Although the Legislature has recognized the need for determining expenditures relatable to exempted income like dividends etc., with prospective effect from the Assessment Year 2007-2008, yet the unamended provisions of section 14A could still be made applicable in respect of appropriate cases where it is found that the gross exempted income have been declared without reflecting any expenditure thereof, depending upon the facts of each case. Admittedly, no separate books of accounts have been maintained in respect of exempted income in the appellant's case. Hence, as held by the Assessing Officer, considering the huge volume of business covering various components, it would be difficult on the part of the Assessing Officer to correlate each and every investment to the corresponding identifiable liability. Therefore, in the case of the appellant, it is not only desirable, but also incumbent to allocate the expenditure on pro-rata basis towards exempted and non exempted income. However, the balance-sheet of the appellant having reflected reserve and surplus funds far exceeding, the quantum of investments in the shares from out of which dividend income had been earned year after year, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt in support of its claim that it had utilized its own surplus funds and not interest bearing borrowed funds, for the purpose of investments in the said shares. Hence, the determination of pro-rata interest expenditure relatable to the dividend income is not sustainable, and, therefore, the same is hereby deleted. (ii) Although it is acceptable that the investments in the shares had been made in the earlier years, yet the appellant cannot get away with the plea that it did not incur any administrative and other general expenditures for day to day management and monitoring of such investments portfolio for which expenditure relatable to salaries of employees, repairs to assets and other related expenditures could be inevitably attributable. In this view of the matter, the action of the assessing officer in determining on pro-rata basis the administrative and other expenditure (for Head Office only) is hereby held to be in order, not requiring any disturbance. Hence, in respect of this issue, disallowance and addition to the tune of Rs. 5.91 lakhs is, hereby, sustained.”
  2. Allegation That No Expenditure Was Incurred for Dividend Income (Section 14A): The court scrutinized the Tribunal's paras 35–37 and found that the Tribunal had considered the assessee's contention that it had not incurred any expenditure to earn dividend income. The Tribunal, after examining the CIT(A)'s order, reached a conclusion that no interference with the lower authorities' disallowances was warranted. Because the Tribunal had given thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and reached a substantive conclusion, the court held that such a view could not be altered by way of rectification. The court therefore declined to interfere on this ground.
  3. Observation Regarding Sale/Transfer of Power at Market Price: The court noted that the Tribunal had not reached a definitive finding on the allocation of expenses and had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee objected to the Tribunal's observation that power was not transferred on market price; the court agreed that the assessee's submissions (including bills and rates) should be recorded and properly reflected. To give correct effect to the assessee's contention in the Tribunal's order, the court ordered removal of the word "Not" in the 8th line of para 50 of the Tribunal's order so that the sentence would read that the assessee had sold/transferred power to its other units on market price. The court disposed of this part of the miscellaneous application by effecting that modification.

M.P. No. 36/Vizag/2011

  1. Issues Already Adjudicated: The court observed that the first two errors raised (section 14A disallowance and reduction of claim under section 80IA) had already been addressed in the earlier miscellaneous petition and did not require fresh adjudication.
  2. Repetition of Grounds (5 & 6): The court found the assessee's contention correct that the Tribunal had repeated reproduction of ground nos. 5 & 6 in the order. The court deleted the duplicated ground nos. 5 & 6 as reproduced on page 36, leaving the properly reproduced grounds on page 37 intact.
  3. Disallowance of Repairs at Sugar Division Bhimadole (Rs. 52,49,207/-): The court reviewed the material and observed that the sugar unit Bhimadole was acquired in A.Y. 2004-05 and that substantial remodeling and renovation expenditures were incurred thereafter. No evidence was placed on record to indicate that production had commenced in the impugned assessment year. Given that the unit had been purchased as a sick unit and renovation was extensive (including expert advice), the court agreed with the Tribunal's treatment of the expenditure as capital in nature and found no error. The court reiterated that the Tribunal's considered view, arrived at after examining rival submissions and the lower authorities' findings, could not be reopened by way of rectification.

M.P. No. 37/Vizag/2011

  1. Issues Already Adjudicated: As in M.P. 36, the court noted that the issues of section 14A disallowance and section 80IA deduction had been dealt with earlier and did not warrant re-adjudication.
  2. Disallowance of Repairs at Sugar Division (Rs. 17,70,215/- and Rs. 13,96,010/-): The court found the Tribunal's confirmation of the CIT(A)'s view that those expenditures were capital in nature to be justified. The court noted absence of evidence before the lower authorities showing commencement of production in the impugned years; the CIT(A) had examined the nature of expenditures and held them to be capital, and the Tribunal confirmed that conclusion. The court concluded no error in the Tribunal's approach.
  3. Numeric Correction for Sugar Division Tanuku: The court found that the figure recorded in the Tribunal's order (Rs. 11,28,236/-) had been adopted from the assessee's memo of appeal but was incorrect. The correct figure (as per the assessment order and as conceded by the revenue) is Rs. 1,16,20,789/-. The court substituted the wrong figure with the correct one in the Tribunal's order.

Throughout its analysis, the court repeatedly emphasized that where the Tribunal had considered rival submissions and taken a substantive view, that view could not be re-opened by way of a rectification petition unless the error was clerical or purely accidental; substantive review was not permissible under the guise of rectification.

Holding and Implications

PARTLY ALLOWED

Direct consequences of the court's ruling (as expressly reflected in the opinion):

  • The extraction in para 36 of the Tribunal's order was found to be incorrect and was substituted by the CIT(A)'s para 2.3 text reproduced by the court (the relevant passage was set out in the court's order).
  • The Tribunal's substantive adjudication on disallowance under section 14A (and related consideration of whether any expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income) was held to have been made after due consideration of rival submissions; the court declined to disturb the Tribunal's view on that substantive point.
  • The Tribunal's observation in para 50 that the assessee had not sold/transferred power to its other units on market price was corrected by removing the word "Not" so that the Tribunal's order would reflect that the assessee had sold/transferred power to its other units on market price. The court directed that the assessee's submissions on this point be recorded and the matter (allocation of expenses) remain subject to re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer as remanded by the Tribunal.
  • Duplicate reproductions of ground nos. 5 & 6 in the Tribunal's order were deleted (the proper reproduction on page 37 remains).
  • The Tribunal's characterization of certain renovation/repair expenditures for sugar units (Bhimadole and the other unit(s) considered in M.P. 37) as capital in nature was upheld; the court found no error in the Tribunal's confirmation of disallowance where no evidence showed that production had commenced in the impugned years.
  • A numeric transcription error for the Sugar Division (Tanuku) in the Tribunal's order was corrected by substituting Rs. 11,28,236/- with the correct figure Rs. 1,16,20,789/-.

The opinion does not purport to establish any broader legal precedent beyond the disposition of these particular rectification errors and the confirmation of the Tribunal's substantive conclusions where justified. The immediate effect is correction of specified clerical/extractive errors in the Tribunal's consolidated order and upholding of the Tribunal's substantive conclusions on the capital nature of certain expenditures and on the section 14A-related adjudication. No new legal principle or precedent is announced by this order; the court emphasized that substantive review is not permissible by way of rectification when the Tribunal has taken a considered view.

Final Disposition: The miscellaneous applications of the assessees were partly allowed and disposed of in accordance with the corrections and confirmations recorded above.

Show all summary ...

Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M:— These miscellaneous applications are preferred on behalf of the assessee against the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2011 with the submission that some errors are crept in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, rectification is required therein. Some common errors are pointed out in all these miscellaneous applications. Therefore, they were heard together. We however, prefer to adjudicate these miscellaneous applications one after the other.

M.P No. 35.Vizag/2011:

2. Through this miscellaneous application, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in para no. 36 at page no. 24 of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has extracted para no. 6.1 of the order of the CIT(A), whereas this extraction is not relevant to the issue in dispute being dealt in this para of the order. In this para, the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue of disallowance of proportionate expenditure u/s. 14A of the Act, whereas in the extracted portion, the issue discussed by the CIT(A) was with regard to the set off of the expenditures against the interest income earned by the assessee. Therefore, this extraction of the order of the CIT(A) require to be deleted from this para. The Ld. D.R did not object this argument.

3. On careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the miscellaneous petition, we find force in the contention of the assessee that the extracted portion is not relevant to the controversy discussed in para no. 36 of the order of the Tribunal. This mistake has crept inadvertently in the order of the Tribunal and the wrong portion of the order of the CIT(A) was extracted in this para. Whereas, the discussion of the CIT(A) in his order in para no. 2.3 was required to be extracted. We therefore, substitute the extracted portion of the order of the CIT(A) in para no. 36 by the following portion of the CIT(A)'s order in para no. 2.3:

“After hearing the learned authorized representative and on a careful consideration of the facts relating to the issue, the following observations made and decisions taken:—

(i) Although the Legislature has recognized the need for determining expenditures relatable to exempted income like dividends etc., with prospective effect from the Assessment Year 2007-2008, yet the unamended provisions of section 14A could still be made applicable in respect of appropriate cases where it is found that the gross exempted income have been declared without reflecting any expenditure thereof, depending upon the facts of each case. Admittedly, no separate books of accounts have been maintained in respect of exempted income in the appellant's case. Hence, as held by the Assessing Officer, considering the huge volume of business covering various components, it would be difficult on the part of the Assessing Officer to correlate each and every investment to the corresponding identifiable liability. Therefore, in the case of the appellant, it is not only desirable, but also incumbent to allocate the expenditure on pro-rata basis towards exempted and non exempted income. However, the balance-sheet of the appellant having reflected reserve and surplus funds far exceeding, the quantum of investments in the shares from out of which dividend income had been earned year after year, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt in support of its claim that it had utilized its own surplus funds and not interest bearing borrowed funds, for the purpose of investments in the said shares. Hence, the determination of pro-rata interest expenditure relatable to the dividend income is not sustainable, and, therefore, the same is hereby deleted.

(ii) Although it is acceptable that the investments in the shares had been made in the earlier years, yet the appellant cannot get away with the plea that it did not incur any administrative and other general expenditures for day to day management and monitoring of such investments portfolio for which expenditure relatable to salaries of employees, repairs to assets and other related expenditures could be inevitably attributable. In this view of the matter, the action of the assessing officer in determining on pro-rata basis the administrative and other expenditure (for Head Office only) is hereby held to be in order, not requiring any disturbance. Hence, in respect of this issue, disallowance and addition to the tune of Rs. 5.91 lakhs is, hereby, sustained.”

4. The second mistake pointed out through this application by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal requires rectification.

5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand has submitted that Tribunal has adjudicated the impugned issue i.e disallowance of proportionate expenditure u/s. 14A of the I.T Act and having dwelt upon the contentions of the assessees, the Tribunal has taken a view that disallowance made by the lower authorities are proper. Since the Tribunal has taken a decision having considered the rival submissions, the view of the Tribunal cannot be revised under the garb of the rectification.

6. Having carefully examined the order of the Tribunal, vis-à-vis miscellaneous application, we find that in para nos. 35 to 37, Tribunal has examined this issue in detail in the light of rival submissions. The contentions raised by the assessee that he has not incurred any expenditure in receipt of dividend income was also considered by the Tribunal. Having examined the order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal has taken a view that no interference is called for in the disallowances made by the lower authorities. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view after having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, the view taken cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification. We therefore, find no merit in this request of the assessees. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

7. Next defect pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that Tribunal has wrongly made an observation that assessee has not sold the power to other units on market price, whereas, the assessee has categorically stated before the Tribunal that the power was transferred/sold to its other units on market price. In support of his contention, he has placed the bills issued by Eastern Power Distribution Company and the rates on which power were transferred to other units. The Ld. D.R on the other hand has submitted that Tribunal has not given any findings on this issue and has simply remanded the matter to the assessing officer for re-adjudication in the light of submissions of the assessees.

8. We have carefully examined the order of the Tribunal vis-à-vis this miscellaneous application and we find that Tribunal has not given a specific finding with regard to the allocation of expenses and has remanded the matter back to the A.O with certain directions. Since the matter is subjudice with the A.O, the arguments of the assessee that the powers were transferred/sold on market price to its other units can also be examined. The assessee has an objection with the observations of the Tribunal that the power was not transferred on the market price. We, however, of the view that the submission of the assessees should be recorded in the order. We, accordingly, modify the observation in this regard and to give a proper meaning of the assessee's contention, we remove the word ‘Not’ used in the 8th line of the para no. 50 of the order and by removing this word ‘Not’, the meaning of the sentence would be that assessee has sold the power to other units on market price. Accordingly, this miscellaneous application is disposed of.

M.P No. 36.Vizag/2011:

9. In this miscellaneous application, first two errors are raised with regard to the finding of the Tribunal in respect of disallowance of proportionate expenditure u/s. 14A and reduction of claim for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Both these issues have already been adjudicated by us in the foregoing miscellaneous petition. Therefore, no fresh adjudication is called for.

10. The next error pointed out in the order of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has repeated the reproduction of ground nos. 5 & 6 of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the repeated paras may be deleted. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection to this fact. We have carefully examined the order of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the miscellaneous application and we find force in the contention of the assessees. We have also observed that at page no. 36, the ground no. 6 is not properly reproduced, whereas in page no. 36 it is properly reproduced. We therefore, in order to make it more clear, delete the ground nos. 5 & 6 reproduced in the page no. 36 of the order of the Tribunal. The ground nos. 5 & 6 reproduced in page no. 37 will only remain in the order of the Tribunal.

11. Next error pointed out in the order of the Tribunal that Tribunal has adjudicated the issue of disallowance of repairs in Sugar division Bhimadole amounting to Rs. 52,49,207/- as capital in nature following its order for the assessment year 2004-2005, whereas, in the impugned assessment year, the production of the unit was started and is not proper to hold that production was not commenced following the order for A.Y 2004-2005 in which the sugar unit was purchased.

12. The Ld. D.R on the other hand has submitted that nothing is borne out from the order of the lower authorities in this regard that production was commenced in this year. The Unit was purchased in the assessment year 2004-2005 and the assessee has undertaken the remodeling, modification and renovations of the buildings that too after obtaining the expert advice of factory building and plant and machinery. No evidence was placed on record as to when the production was commenced. Therefore, the Tribunal following its earlier order for the assessment year 2004-2005 has treated the expenditure to be of capital in nature and disallowed the claim of the assessees.

13. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the miscellaneous application and we find that in the earlier year i.e 2004-2005, the sugar unit Bhimadole was acquired by the assessee and in this year, a substantial amount was incurred on its remodeling and modification of the assets. Nothing was available from the order of the lower authorities that assessee has started the production in the impugned assessment year. Admittedly, the sugar unit being a sick unit was purchased by the assessees and in the first year no production was started and in subsequent year, the assessee has undertaken remodeling, modification and renovation of building after taking expert advice of consultant from Germany. When the entire unit was under renovation, it is hardly to accept that the production was started. The Tribunal has taken into account all these aspects while adjudicating the issue. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal. Moreover, view taken by the Tribunal in the light of rival submissions cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification. Therefore, we find no merit in the submissions of the assessees. Accordingly, this miscellaneous application no. 36 is disposed of.

M.P No. 37.Vizag/2011:

14. In this miscellaneous application, first two errors are pointed out with regard to the disallowance of proportionate expenditure u/s. 14A and reduction of claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Both these issues have already been adjudicated by us in foregoing M.As We therefore, find no justification to re-adjudicate it again in this M.A

15. Next error is pointed out with regard to the disallowance of repairs in sugar division Bhimadole amounting to Rs. 17,70,215/- and Rs. 13,96,010/- with the submission that this ground was adjudicated by the Tribunal following its order for the assessment year 2004-2005. Whereas, the production was started in the impugned assessment year. The Ld. D.R on the other hand has submitted that in this year also, the assessee has incurred a substantial amount of expenditure in renovation and remodeling of the sugar division. Therefore, the expenditure incurred cannot be called to be of revenue in nature. He however, submitted that was nothing available from the orders of lower authorities that in this year, the assessee has started the productions.

16. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the order of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the miscellaneous application of the assessee and we find that the assessee has acquired the sugar units in the assessment year 2004-2005 and in that year the claim of setting off of expenditure against the interest income was disallowed for the reasons that the assessee has not commenced its production. From next assessment year, assessee had undertaken remodeling, renovating the entire sugar division and incurred a substantial amount of expenditure. The nature of expenditure was considered by the CIT(A) and since it was found to be of capital in nature, it was disallowed. Before the lower authorities, no evidence was filed whether the production was commenced either in the assessment year 2005-2006 or 2006-2007. In the year 2006-2007 assessee has also incurred the substantial amount in renovation of the sugar division and no evidence was placed before the lower authorities whether it has commenced its production or not. Moreover, the CIT(A) has examined the nature of expenditure and found it to be capital in nature. All these aspects were examined by the Tribunal while confirming the disallowance. The factum regarding the commencement of production has not been borne out from the order of the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal following its order for the assessment year 2004-2005 confirmed the disallowance. We have also examined the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessees and we find that CIT(A) is justified in holding that the expenditures are of capital in nature. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view after giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification. We therefore, find no merit in the miscellaneous application of the assessees in this regard.

17. Next error pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that at page no. 46 of the order of the Tribunal under the heading ‘Sugar Division’ at Tanuku, the amount mentioned with respect to the item 1 to 18 at page no. 19 of the assessment order is Rs. 11,28,236/-, whereas, the correct figure is Rs. 1,16,20,789/-. This correction in the figure was pointed out during the course of hearing of the appeal but no cognizance was taken by the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue. In support of the correct figure, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the assessment order. The revenue has agreed to this error in the figure.

18. Having carefully examined the Tribunal's order vis-à-vis the miscellaneous application, we find that in the memo of the appeal the assessee has given this figure of Rs. 11,28,236/- and the Tribunal has adopted the same. Since the figure is wrongly mentioned in the order of the Tribunal, we substitute the same by the figure Rs. 1,16,20,789/-. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application is disposed of.

19. In the result, the miscellaneous applications of the assessees are partly allowed.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x