CARUNA BAL VIKAS,CHENNAI V. DCIT(E) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

MA 125/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Caruna Bal Vikas, represented by Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, who filed miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order concerning disallowances made under section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Tribunal had previously remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, which the assessee contested, arguing that the CIT(A) had exceeded his powers and that the disallowance was not applicable as per the Tribunal's earlier decisions for other assessment years. The Departmental Representative, Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT, contended that no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order was shown. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and allowed the applications, correcting the earlier oversight.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107319 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.376/Mds/2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOWTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.V. MUTHU ABIRAMI

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ Before Shri George George K., Vice-President & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member M.A. Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.14 & 15/Chny/2020] िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Caruna Bal Vikas, C/o CA. John Ravindran Moses, John & Julian, Chartered Accountants, B-403, Prince Garden, 40, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [PAN:AAATC3951G] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chennai Circle, Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 07.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: By way of present miscellaneous applications, the assessee seeks to rectify the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos.14 & 15/Chny/2020 dated 12.06.2024 for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13. M.A. Nos.125 & 126/Chny/24 2 2. The ld. AR Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, referring to the petition, submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), which is beyond the powers given by the statute, is not adjudicated by this Tribunal and also challenged the order of the Tribunal in remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer on the ground that when the ld. CIT(A) himself has upheld the Assessing Officer’s decision that disallowance under section 13(1)(b) of the Act was not warranted in the case of the assessee in respect of grants made to channel partners for the AY 2010-11 and prayed for suitable rectification of the Tribunal dated 12.06.2024. 3. The ld. DR Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT submits that no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal was brought on record and therefore, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.06.2024. We note that we have not adjudicated the ground taken by the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had acted beyond the powers given by the statute. Hence, we are of the opinion that not adjudicating the said ground is a mistake apparent from record. Therefore, we hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not have any power under the statute to M.A. Nos.125 & 126/Chny/24 3 remit the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Regarding the second plea of the assessee that this Tribunal ought not to have remitted the issue back to file of the Assessing Officer, based on the earlier order of this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No.376/Mds/2014 dated 05.02.2015, we find that it is a mistake apparent on record. We find that the issue of disallowance u/s.13(1)(b) is settled and the Assessing Officer never made the said disallowance for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in the second round. For the other assessment years also, i.e., Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16, the Assessing Officer had never made any disallowance u/s.13(1)(b). We find that this Tribunal’s order for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 dated 12.06.2024 also does not contain any direction on disallowance u/s.13(1)(b). Consequently, since the facts of the case for all the assessment years are identical, the disallowance u/s.13(1)(b) made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 alone, much less based on the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 05.02.2015. M.A. Nos.125 & 126/Chny/24 4 5. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 17th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) VICE-PRESIDENT (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.04.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "