9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of Rs.34,69,78,545/- by reducing it from the taxable income after giving appeal effect to the order of Ld CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that return of income was filed by the assessee showing loss of Rs.26,81,4,643/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had claimed service charges @ 2% of total deposits mobilized amounting to Rs.10,17,21,116/- and further reimbursement of expenses amounting to Rs.69,19,57,090/- totaling Rs.79,36,78,206/-. The Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relief granted by the Ld CIT(A) was for full amount of Rs.79,36,78,206/- or for Rs.29,51,17,988/-. The Ld CIT(A) disposed off the above rectification application stating therein that vide order dated 15.3.1999 relief of the entire amount of Rs.79,36,78,206/- was granted to the assessee & there was no mistake apparent from record and concluded as under:- "In view of the above, it is clear that the total claim made by you have already been allowed by me and there is no question of further relief. As the Assessing Officer has not considered the part of your claim which was not debited by you to the P&L Account, the addition made in the computation of income was different. But this does not mean that there is a mistake in the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 154 with Ld CIT(A) to seek clarification as to whether the relief was for full amount of Rs.79,36,78,206/- or for Rs.29,51,17,98/- and the same was rejected by the Ld CIT(A) holding that there was no mistake in the order and in this respect our attention was invited to paper book page 135 wherein relief of Rs.29.51 crores was mentioned instead of Rs.64.10 crores. He further stated that Ld CIT(A) after getting case back from ITAT adjudicated again and allowed the remaining amount out of Rs.34,69,78,545/- which was wrong as there was no mistake apparent from record. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following case laws:- 1. Balaram (T.S.), ITO v. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) 2. M.M.N.D. Muthiah Rajasabai v. Controller of Estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Total deposits collected during the year for assessee company are of Rs.508,60,55,784/-. In organization like Post Office, LIC, UTI, etc. the extent of expenses incurred for mobilizing deposit is about 1%. While in other cases of assessee's line of business such expenses remain up to 2% of deposits collected. So, in all fairness expenses @ 3% of deposits collected is considered most reasonable and allowed. So allowable expenses @ 3% work out to Rs.15,25,81,675/- as against Rs.79.98,76,204/- claimed by the assessee. Thus balance expenses to the tune of Rs.64,10,96,533/- are disallowed. However, since total amount debited to P&L Account is Rs.44,76,99,661/- (Rs.34,59,78,545/- + Rs.10,17,81,116/-, addition in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
