9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 323 - AT - Income TaxRectification of Tribunal order - Contradiction in para 11 and 13 - Held That - Assessee have agreed to change in investments from 282.41 Lacs to 337.32 lacs thus tax free incomes have been earned further there was also increase in current capital. Tribunal took view after considering all facts and figure. Therefore, apparently there was no error or apparent mistake committed by the Tribunal. Reliance also placed on Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009 - TMI - 32150 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY) & Hero Cycles(2009 -TMI - 35238 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT). Application rejected.
Issues:
Rectification of order for A.Y. 2004-05 regarding disallowance of interest on opening investment of Rs.282.42 lacs. Analysis: Issue 1: Contradiction in Tribunal's order The applicant raised concerns about a contradiction in the Tribunal's order regarding the disallowance of interest on the opening investment. The applicant argued that no disallowance was made in earlier years for the opening investment. The Tribunal, however, confirmed a proportionate disallowance of interest on the same opening investment. The applicant contended that disallowance cannot be made on the opening balance and highlighted inconsistencies in the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the applicant and the Revenue, ultimately upholding the disallowance of interest on a portion of the investment. Issue 2: Applicant's arguments The applicant's representative argued that no disallowance of interest was made in earlier years for the opening investment. They pointed out discrepancies in the Tribunal's approach and highlighted the availability of interest-free funds to cover the current year's investment. The representative referred to the balance sheets of previous years to support their argument that no proportionate disallowance should have been made. The Tribunal carefully considered these arguments but ultimately upheld the disallowance of interest on a portion of the investment based on the available funds. Issue 3: Revenue's position The Revenue supported the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that all factual aspects were correctly considered. The Revenue representative explained the basis for the proportionate disallowance of interest and highlighted the interest-free funds available to cover the current year's investment. The Tribunal, after thorough examination, concluded that the disallowance of interest was justified on a portion of the investment, while allowing the claim for the remaining amount. Issue 4: Tribunal's decision After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order. The Tribunal noted the consistency in the treatment of interest-bearing and interest-free funds, along with the changes in investments over the years. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument of a mistake and dismissed the petition. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the principle of res judicata in tax proceedings and cited legal precedents regarding the Tribunal's power of review. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's miscellaneous application, upholding its decision on the disallowance of interest on a portion of the investment. The Tribunal found no error in its order and emphasized the proper consideration of facts and legal principles in reaching its decision. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the arguments presented by the applicant, the Revenue's position, the Tribunal's decision, and the legal principles applied.
|
