P.C.C.Logistics Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 183/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4512 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASISH TRIPATHY
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2769/MDS/2016 & C.O. NO.183/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.2769/MDS/2016) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S PCC LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., NO.1, APPU MAISTRY STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AAACP 4260 A ()*/ APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR) )* + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASISH TRIPATHY, JCIT -.)* + , / RESPONDENT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE / + 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2017 12' + 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, CHENNA I, DATED 30.06.2016, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAM E ORDER OF THE 2 I.T.A. NO.2769/MDS/16 C.O. NO.183/MDS/16 CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE APPEAL AND T HE CROSS- OBJECTION TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THI S COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI ASISH TRIPATHY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINES S AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 4%. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D .R., THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE NET PROFIT AT 2.43%. THE PAYMENT OF HIRE CHARGES WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 4% OF THE TURNOVER. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVE R, RESTRICTED THE PROFIT AT 3% INSTEAD OF 4% OF THE TURNOVER ESTIMATE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE NET PROFIT AT 3% I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS ISSUE D BY THE OFFICER AT MUMBAI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSME NT RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM MUMBAI TO CHENNAI IN THE YEAR 2012. 3 I.T.A. NO.2769/MDS/16 C.O. NO.183/MDS/16 HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR 2013, THE MUMBAI OFFICER ISSUE D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO AP PEAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE MUMBAI OFFICER HAD NO JURIS DICTION IN THE YEAR 2013 SINCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE ALREADY TRAN SFERRED TO CHENNAI JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MUMBAI OFFICER UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, HENCE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL O RDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY CHENNAI OFFICER IN THE YEAR 2015. HOWEVER, THIS WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MON THS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE ON MERIT IS ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 4%. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 3%. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TRANSFERRED FROM MUMBAI TO CHENNAI IN THE YEAR 2012 . THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT MUMBA I IN THE YEAR 2013 CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. IN OTHER WORD S, THE OFFICER AT 4 I.T.A. NO.2769/MDS/16 C.O. NO.183/MDS/16 MUMBAI HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE YEAR 2013 TO ISSU E NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY S UBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. 5. WHEN THE OFFICER AT MUMBAI HAS NO JURISDICTION U NDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER CANNOT B E PASSED BY THE OFFICER AT CHENNAI. MOREOVER, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CHENNAI OFFICER WAS AFTER EXPIRY OF PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE S AME IS QUASHED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.2769/MDS/16 C.O. NO.183/MDS/16 + -056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. -.)* /RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI 5. 69 -0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.