RANE HOLDING LTD, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CORP CIR-5(1), CHENNAI

CO 3/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9256 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Keywords: Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3443/CHNY/2018 & C.O. NO.3/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.3443/CHNY/2018) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S RANE HOLDINGS LIMITED, 132, MAITHRI, CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 086. PAN : AABCR 5136 J ()*/ APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR) )* + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT -.)* + , / RESPONDENT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE / + 0# / DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2019 12' + 0# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.04.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, CHENNA I, DATED 31.08.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE 2 I.T.A. NO.3443/CHNY/18 C.O. NO.3/CHNY/19 AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER AN D DISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEA L BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THER E WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULAT ED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 20.0 8.2013 IN I.T.A. NO.156/MDS/2013, REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PASSED THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WITHIN THE TIME FRAME FIXED UNDER SECTION 158 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT' ). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. WHEN THIS WAS BRO UGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) SIMPLY REJECTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GRO UND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDE R OF THIS TRIBUNAL 3 I.T.A. NO.3443/CHNY/18 C.O. NO.3/CHNY/19 BY THE COMMISSIONER / ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS FOR THE CIT(APPEALS) TO CALL FOR REC ORD FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASCERTAIN WHEN THE ORDER WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY HIM. SINCE SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DO NE BY THE CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE MAT TER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR R ECONSIDERATION. 4. COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 12,57,90,409/- AS DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S ECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2) O F THE INCOME- TAX RULES, 1962. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNS EL, EVEN ON MERIT, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HEARD SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE MATTER NEEDS 4 I.T.A. NO.3443/CHNY/18 C.O. NO.3/CHNY/19 TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECONSIDERATION. 6. HAVING HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DIVIDE ND INCOME. BUT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DI VIDEND INCOME, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY A PPLYING RULE 8D(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ISSUE OF LIMITATION, WHICH GOES TO VERY R OOT OF THE MATTER. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS TO ASCERTAIN BY CALLING FOR RECORD FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL D ATED 20.08.2013 WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THEM. THEREFORE, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION, IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND BY CALLING FOR REC ORDS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE A FRESH IN 5 I.T.A. NO.3443/CHNY/18 C.O. NO.3/CHNY/19 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 1 ST APRIL, 2019. KRI. + -056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. -.)*/ RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-5, CHENNAI 5. 69 -0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.