M/s Technoart Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

CO 29/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7324 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ETWA MUNDA CITIIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER C.O. NO.29/BANG/2011 (IN ITA NO.496/BANG/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. TECHNOART CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.19 *& 19/1, 3 RD FLOOR, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560 004. PAN : AAACT 5910B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(2), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR BY : SHRI R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCAT E RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA, CIT-II(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.06.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISIN G OUT OF ITA NO.496/BANG/2011 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2011 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.8 5,18,520/- IS IN CO 29/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT-APP LICANT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AND IS ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPUTATION FILED AFTER SURVEY FOR THE PUR POSES OF ASSESSMENT, HENCE THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DISMISSAL OF APPELLANTS APPEAL. 2. THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234D OF THE ACT IN THE APPLICANT- ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT WARRANTED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY RELIEF, RATHER SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. [1982] 136 ITR 315 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCEEDED WHOLLY BEFORE THE AAC THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR CROSS-OB JECTION. A CROSS-OBJECTION, BEING IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL, ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WOULD MEAN INTERFERING WITH THE OR DER OF THE AAC AND AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE DEPARTMEN TAL APPEAL AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AAC, IT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN LIMINE AS NOT BEING ENTERTAINAB LE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TECHNICALLY ALLOWING THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH JUNE , 2012. DS/- CO 29/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. CROSS OBJECTOR 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.