TAMILNADU MINERALS LIMITED, CHENNAI V. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

CO 79/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4327 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO. 1644/CHNY/2019 & C.O.NO.79/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.1644/CHNY/ 2019) ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. TAMILNADU MINERALS LTD, NO.31, KAMARAJAR SALAI, TWAD HOUSE, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 600 005. [PAN AABCT 2250P] ( / APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) # $ % / APPELLANT BY : MS. R. ANITHA, IRS, JCIT. &' # $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. PHILIP GEORGE, ADV ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 25-02-2020 +,'! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-02-2020 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROS S OBJECTION (CO) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.1644/19 & CO79/19 :- 2 -: LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, CH ENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 13.03.2019 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-2014. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SETTING ASIDE THE REASSE SSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE A.O. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE SURMISE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT DEALIN G WITH OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON 14.12.2018 DISPOSING OFF ALL OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SETTING ASIDE THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SPEAKING ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PHYSICALLY SERVED ON ASSESSEE S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND ALSO SERVED BY POST AS WELL AS B Y E-MAIL. 5. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N 21.12.2018 AFTER DISPOSING OFF ALL OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE BY A SPEAKING ORDER DATED 14. 12.2018. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED . 3. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S. TAMILNADU MINE RALS LTD, IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ITA NO.1644/19 & CO79/19 :- 3 -: ACT, 1956. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF QUAR RYING AND PRODUCTION OF GRANITE, LIMESTONE AND GRAPHITE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2013-14 WAS FILED ON 28.09.2013 DISCLOSING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.2,54,46,683/-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPOR ATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS ASSESSING OFFICE R) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT TOTAL INCOME OF H2,65,41,398/-. WH ILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF H2,82,407/- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND PRIOR PER IOD EXPENSES OF H8,12,308/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AS THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF H95,10,561/- WA S WRONGLY ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2018, AFTER RECE IPT OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 03.0 4.2018 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF H2,54,46,680/-. AGAINST THE SAID R ETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED AS ASSESSING OFFICER) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AT TOTAL INCOME OF H3,60,40,440/- BY DISALL OWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OF H95,10,561/-. ITA NO.1644/19 & CO79/19 :- 4 -: 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE VERY REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE P ROMPTED BY MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD SQUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED AGAINST REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT( A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN SQUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISPOSED OFF THE OBJE CTIONS FILED AGAINST REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN AS MUCH AS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD DISPOSED THE OBJECTIONS BY SPEAKING ORDER DATED 14.12.2018. 6. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION THAT THE RE OPENING IS BAD IN LAW, IN AS MUCH AS, IT WAS PROMPTED BY ME RE CHANGE OF OPINION, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD, (2010) 320 ITR 561 . 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PASSING SPEAKING ORD ER. IN THE ITA NO.1644/19 & CO79/19 :- 5 -: CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD SERIOUSLY FELL I N ERROR BY SQUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT O BJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DISPOSED OF, WE ALSO NOTICE T HAT LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT DEALT WITH OTHER CONTENTIONS CHALLENGING REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING, SUCH AS, ON CHANGE OF OPINION ETC RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND ALSO NOT DEALT WITH MERITS OF THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I T IS OPEN TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE TO RAISE ALL THE CONTENTIONS O F THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL. THUS, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CO NTENDING THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID IN LA W AS THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE PROMPTED BY MERE CHAN GE OF OPINION. SINCE THIS ISSUE WAS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE LD. CIT (A), AS WE KEPT THIS ISSUE ALIVE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE (SUPRA). THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E HAD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.1644/19 & CO79/19 :- 6 -: 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER -) / CHENNAI . / DATED:25TH FEBRUARY, 2020 KV /0 $0& *12032'* / COPY TO: 0 1 . # / APPELLANT 3. 0 ( 4*056 / CIT(A) 5. 278 0& * 9 / DR 2. &' # / RESPONDENT 4. 0 ( 4* / CIT 6. 8:0;) / GF