TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure was revenue in nature. Once again before the Tribunal, the assessee made further attempt on the same grounds, which were considered by the Tribunal in great length and it was rejected. Tribunal rightly noted the decisions on the point that an order of remand is not for the asking and superior courts should be slow in remanding a case to the authority, unless it is shown that the case warrants reconsideration on the already available material or when important legal issue was not considered and that cannot be considered by the Court because disputed facts have to be gone into otherwise, prayer for remand should be rejected. Tribunal upon reconsideration of the factual position, found no justifiable reason to accept the prayer of the assessee to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer and also rightly observed that the assessee cannot fill up the gaps and blanks by seeking for a remand. Further, the Tribunal also agreed with the submission of the Revenue that there is a likelihood of tinkering of the evidence in the meantime and if the same is permitted, it would be prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Revenue. Hence. we are not persuaded by the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon the assessee to furnish details to which, the assessee responded stating that the said amount represents the expenses incurred by the assessee for public issue. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim made by the assessee on the ground that expenses incurred for public issue has to be treated as a capital expenditure and in this regard, placed reliance on the decision in Metro General Credits Ltd., vs. CIT [(1996) 221 ITR 99 (Madras)]. 4.The assessee further stated that the expenses can be regarded as integral part of the profit earning process and not for acquisition of any assets or a right of permanent character and the decision in Metro General Credits Ltd., (supra) will not apply to the assessee's case. 5.The correctness of the stand was examined by the Assessing Officer, who opined that the details filed in respect of the expenses clearly bring out the capital nature of the expenditure and the assessee-company wanted to raise more capital, hence went in for public issue, which has enduring advantage and has to be regarded as capital expenditure. 6.The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Madras (for br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember, 1993 and the postage expenditure of ₹ 20.20 Lakhs on the actual despatch of brochures for membership was claimed to have been incurred in November/December, 1993. The membership subscription of ₹ 42,34,900/- was received only during the accounting year 1994-95. Therefore, it is submitted that the contention advanced by the assessee, before the CIT(A) for the first time, was rightly rejected as an afterthought. Once again, the finding rendered by the CIT(A) was examined by the Tribunal and after assigning elaborate reasons, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee argued for remanding the matter for fresh consideration, which was independently considered by the Tribunal and held that there is no necessity for remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 10.We have elaborately heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 11.Since the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument praying for remand of the matter to the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embership subscription by the company during the accounting year, when the membership drive is supposed to have taken place along with the public issue in September, 1993. Further, the CIT(A) held that from the prospectus of the public issue, issued in September, 1993, the assessee had only finalized plans for bulk marketing through three contracting parties and from the subsequent annual report for the accounting year 1993-94, these balances were shelved and as of June, 1994, publicity material was under preparation. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's claim that the expenses classified as 'public issue expenses' included expenses of membership drive embarked upon simultaneously, is an afterthought for which there is no basis. 17.Before the Tribunal, the assessee canvassed the same grounds raised before the CIT(A), but with more vehements and the Tribunal appears to have heard the matter at great length, perused the copies of various documents placed by the assessee in the form of a paper book during the course of hearing. The Tribunal by an elaborate order, has dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal in paragraph 6 has noted that the assessee is a public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for remand. 20.We have set out the above facts to show that no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The entire factual matrix has been examined by the Assessing Officer at the first instance, based upon the stand taken by the assessee. Before the CIT(A), for the first time, the assessee set up a case as if portion of the expenses was not relatable to public issue. The CIT(A) would have been well justified to pin down the assessee to their original claim in the return of income filed and reject their case. However, in order to ensure that the assessee gets a fare deal and the correct income needs to be taxed, the stand taken by the assessee was examined for its correctness. After elaborately considering the matter, the CIT(A) found that the assessee miserably failed to establish the tenability and truthfulness of its claim that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Once again before the Tribunal, the assessee made further attempt on the same grounds, which were considered by the Tribunal in great length and it was rejected. 21.As was argued by Mr.J.Sivananda Raj before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
