Remanded

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, v. M/S. Pursarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC29 Feb 2016ITXA/2092/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order deleting an addition. The Court held that the ITAT failed to express an opinion on the applicability of revised AS-7 regarding accounting methods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and remanded to the ITAT for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the ITAT is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ITAT for fresh disposal.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, Vs M/S. Pursarth Trading Pvt… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

ITXA 2092.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2092 OF 2013

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax -9 Mumbai

¶5

.. Appellant

¶6

v/s.

¶7

M/s.Pursarth Trading Pvt. Ltd

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Ashok Kotangale i/b Padma Divakar, for the appellant. Mr.Vipul Joshi, for respondent.

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶11

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J. DATED : 29^th FEBRUARY, 2016.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

. This Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 23^rd January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal relates to Assessment Year 2005-2006.

¶14

The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our consideration.

¶15

“whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.73.88 lacks made by the Assessing Officer on application of percentage completion method of accounting in view of revised AS-7 ?”

¶16

The question as raised does give rise to a substantial question of law and by consent of the parties, the question as framed is taken up for final disposal as the issue is within a narrow compass in the context of the facts.

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

Urmila Ingale

¶19

ITXA 2092.13

¶20

The grievance of the Revenue is that although the impugned order of ITAT records the Revenue's contention that “ the Revenue is of the opinion that as per revised AS-7 (accounting standard), assessee should follow only recognized method of percentage completion method and not the project completion method, which is no longer recognized w.e.f. 01.04.2003”, it has not rendered any finding on the same. On examination of the impugned order, we find that the contention on behalf of the Revenue is correct.

¶21

The impugned order has proceeded to dismiss the Revenue's appeal before it on other ground namely project completion method adopted by the respondent – assessee has been accepted in the earlier and subsequent assessment years by the Revenue. Further the Assessing Officer has while substituting the project completion method by percentage completion method has not discharged its onus that substitution is necessary as the accounting method adopted distorts the correct facts. Besides, the Revenue in a subsequent Assessment Year has brought this very amount to tax on adoption of project completion method adopted by the assessee. Prima facie, the above findings of the ITAT on other issues appear to be justified. However, the issue which remained to be considered by the ITAT was the applicability of revised AS-7 and the consequences thereof as it is effective from 01^st April 2003.

¶22

In view of the fact that the ITAT has not rendered its opinion/finding on the question which was urged by the Revenue before it, it would be appropriate that the impugned order is set aside and restored to the file of the ITAT for a fresh disposal. It is made clear

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

Urmila Ingale

¶25

ITXA 2092.13

¶26

that all the contentions of both the sides are kept open to be urged before the ITAT.

¶27

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶28

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶29

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Urmila Ingale

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, v. M/S. Pursarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, v. M/S. Pursarth Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Credit Agricole Indosuez Mumbai - 20 Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, City-Iii, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income TAX-19 Mumbai Vs M/S. Marigold Mezzanine Investment Fund Mumbai

The Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-7, Mumbai. Vs M/S.Psl Ltd., Mumbai.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I Nashik Vs Akruti Group of Companies

The Commissioner of Income Tax -I Vs Shri Rahul Pradeep Merchant

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Nashik Vs Nashik District Labour Societies Co-Op Federation Ltd.