2007 (12) TMI 248 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessability of syndication charges.
2. Set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the CIT(A).

Summary:

Issue 1: Assessability of Syndication Charges

The AO observed that the assessee, M/s Pennar Electronics (P) Ltd., admitted an income of Rs. 16,17,154 under 'Other income,' which included Rs. 12,06,778 as syndication charges. The AO disallowed the set off of brought forward losses from the TV business against this income, as the TV business was discontinued from April 1995. The CIT(A) held that the syndication charges were earned by the managing director, Shri N. Ravi Kumar Reddy, in his individual capacity, and directed the AO to reopen his assessment. The Tribunal reversed this finding, holding that the CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to assess the syndication charges in the hands of the managing director, and upheld the AO's stand of assessing the syndication charges in the hands of the assessee company.

Issue 2: Set Off of Brought Forward Losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation

The AO disallowed the set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the income from syndication charges and waiver of interest treated as income u/s 41 of the Act. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate on this issue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Powers of the CIT(A)

The Tribunal discussed the jurisdiction and powers of the CIT(A) in detail, citing various judgments, and concluded that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the AO in the order appealed against. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the syndication charges were earned by the managing director and in directing the AO to reopen his assessment. The Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A) to this extent and upheld the AO's stand of assessing the syndication charges in the hands of the assessee company.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1074/Hyd/2003) and the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 1056/Hyd/2003) for statistical purposes, and allowed the appeal of Shri N. Ravi Kumar Reddy (ITA No. 327/Hyd/2006), cancelling the reassessment order passed by the AO and the appellate order of the CIT(A).