Sri.Shaji Puthenparambil Chacko, Chaganacherry V. The ITO, Thiruvalla

CO 14/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4060 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P V HARIHARAN SH A DHANARAJ
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(1); 264; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 23/C/2016 & CO 14/C/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN (SMC) BEFORE SHRI B P JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 23/COCH/2016 (A SST YEAR 2009 - 10 ) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.14/COCH/2016 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 THIRUVALLA VS SHRI SHAJI PUTHENPARAMBIL CHA CKO PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE RUBY NAGAR (PO) CHANGANACHERRY ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ABIPC4421G ASSESSEE BY SHRI P V HARIHARAN REVENUE BY SH A DHANARAJ, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 20 TH JUNE 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 ST JUNE 2016 ORDER PER B P JAIN, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30TH NOV 2015 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION. ITA NO 23/COCH/2016 2 REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UND S OF APPEAL: THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT KOTTAYAM IN SO FAR AS THE POINTS STATED BELOW ARE CONCERNED, IS OPPOSED TO LAW ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO . 23/C/2016 & CO 14/C/2016 2 2 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE TAX DEMAND OF RS.10,82,956/ - RAISED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 3 THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHOSEN TO FILE A REVISION PETITION U/S 264 AGAINST THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 4 THE REVISION PETITION WAS REJECTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT AS THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) DID NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF ORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 264 OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL WHEN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY RAISED BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT BY WAY OF REVISION/S 264 OF THE ACT. 6 THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN ADMITTING AND ALLOWING THE APPEAL IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE, UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS AN ENGINEER FOR JAPANESE SHIPPING COMPANY. HE FILED NIL RE TURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 REQUESTING TO RECTIFY THE MISTA KE OF WRONG ENTRY IN THE RETURN. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE MOVED A REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE LD CIT, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR REVISION DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF ORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 264. AN I NTIMATING U/S 143(1) IS NOT REGARDED AS AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY AND HENCE REVISION PETITION IS REJECTED. 4 THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. ITA NO . 23/C/2016 & CO 14/C/2016 3 5 THE LD DR AR GUED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AFTER THE PETITION U/S 264 HAS BEEN REJECTED. 5.1 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND , ARGUED THAT AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION U/S 154, THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE AO. SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSEE MOVED A REVISION PETITION U/S 26 4 WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 FOR THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) . COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 264 IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 AFTER THE PETITION WAS REJECTED; BUT HAS GONE INTO THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT FOR THE AY 2009 - 10. SINCE THERE IS NO ISSUE REGARDING THE AY 2009 - 10; THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITA, T IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AT ALL. 6 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FULLY AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR THE REVISION U/S 264 PERTAINS TO AY 2008 - 09 AND NOT FOR AY 2009 - 10 AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008 - 09. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 WHERE THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE REVISION U/S 264 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEF ORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO . 23/C/2016 & CO 14/C/2016 4 CROSS OBJECTION NO.14/COCH/2016 7 NOW, WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR THE CROSS OBJEC TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 9 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DAY OF JUNE 2016 SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 21 ST JUNE 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT, 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN