Claim made Through invalid revised return can also be considered

The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act. A revised computation of income was filed during assessment proceedings has claiming further deduction of Rs.3,20,514/- paid as management fee to ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited. The AO disallowed expense of Rs. 5 lacs, allegedly paid to Kotak Mahindra Capital company Limited, on the ground that this expenditure is not incurred in respect of the business of the assessee company. He did not entertain the claim of expense of Rs.3,20,514/- allegedly paid as management fees to ICICI Prudential Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that limit for filing revised return had already lapsed and, therefore such a belated claim was is maintainable. He has held that even on merits, this claim is not allowable because it is not related to business of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the AO, in the body of the assessment order, has himself admitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares and as such by holding that these expenses are not related to assessee’s business is contrary to the facts of the case. Regarding ICICI Prudential Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. Company to whom, a payment of Rs.3,20,514/- was made is concerned, it was submitted that this claim filed in revised return along with revised statement of statutory income in which the assessee surrendered depreciation of building which was wrongly claimed, has been accepted but he has not considered the claim of payments, so this is a paradoxical and unfair action of the AO. But the AO did not agreeable and has made both these additions. Before Ld. CIT(A), it was argued that when eligible claim could not be made within permitted time, the Appellate Authority has a power to entertain a valid claim in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision rendered in the case of GOETZE India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. But even Ld. CIT(A) has not agreed with this contention of the assessee and has approved AO’s action.
After hearing both sides in the light of the available records, I have found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order regarding the grounds raised before him. The order of Ld. CIT(A), insofar as her findings are concerned, falls in the definition of non-speaking order, therefore it becomes imperative and also justified, to restore the entire appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A), so that she can decide the issues afresh. The claim made through invalid revised return can also be considered in the light of GOETZE India Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 

I.T.A .No-4577/Del./2012

ASSESSMENT YEAR -2008-09

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.