Dymos Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperambudur V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 147/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2762 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N V BALAJI
• Assessee Lawyers: H KABILA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !.. # $%, ' () BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2339/MDS/2016 & C.O. NO.147/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NO.2339/MDS/2016) + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S DYMOS LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PLANT NO.1, PLOT NO.A6 & A7, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK, IRRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM 602 117. PAN : AAACH 2525 A (.// APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTION) ./ 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : MS. H. KABILA, JCIT 23./ 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.V. BALAJI, ADVOCATE # 0 4' / DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2017 56, 0 4' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6, CHENN AI, DATED 30.05.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE 2 I.T.A. NO.2339/MDS/16 C.O. NO.147/MDS/16 ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. MS. H. KABILA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS SENT BACK THE I SSUE OF SALES RETURN TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXA MINATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO SUCH POWER . 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.V. BALAJI, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THA T THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED, THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO POWER TO REMIT THE MATTER B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS TO BE R E-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY AN ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. REFERRING TO THE CROSS-OBJECTION, T HE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS-OB JECTION ALSO MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 3 I.T.A. NO.2339/MDS/16 C.O. NO.147/MDS/16 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN D THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS N O POWER TO SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. AT THE BEST, THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY CALL FOR REMAND REPORT F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE BY HIMSELF I N ONE WAY OR OTHER, THEREFORE, REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION MAY NOT BE JUS TIFIED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUI RES RECONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE , BY EXERCISING THE POWER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS- OBJECTION AND THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL T HAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE 4 I.T.A. NO.2339/MDS/16 C.O. NO.147/MDS/16 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . . # $% ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. 0 24$9 :9,4 /COPY TO: 1. ./ /APPELLANT 2. 23./ /RESPONDENT 3. # ;4 () /CIT(A)-6, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, CHENNAI 5. 9< 24 /DR 6. !+ = /GF.