M.Kiran Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), CHENNAI

CO 90/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8948 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Section: 153A; 2

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 NOS.1055 & 1054/CHNY/2018 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2011-12 & C.O. NOS.89 & 90/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NOS.1054 & 1055/CHNY/2018) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI M. KIRAN KUMAR, NO.123, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : ACHPM 2247 E ()*/ APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR) )* + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT -.)* + , / RESPONDENT BY : SH. T. BANUSEKAR, CA / + 0# / DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2018 12' + 0# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.12.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)-18, CHENNAI, DATED 28.12.2017 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SI NCE COMMON 2 I.T.A. NOS.1055 & 1054/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.89 7 90/ CHNY/18 ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS- OBJECTIONS, WE HEARD THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER AND DISPOSING O F THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. WE HEARD SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE REVENUE FILED THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. M/ S ST. FRANCIS CLAY DCOR TILES (2016) 385 ITR 624. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW PRODUCED A COPY OF JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN PRINCI PAL CIT V. MEETA GUTGUTIA (2018) 96 TAXMANN.COM 468. THE SPEC IAL LEAVE PETITION AROSE OUT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH CO URT WHICH HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW AS THAT OF KERALA HIGH COURT. NOW, ADMITTEDLY, THERE ARE TWO HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS, ONE IS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER ONE IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUD GMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT WAS DISMISSED. EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER ON THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION MAY NOT LAY DOWN ANY LAW, HOWEVER, PRIMA FACIE THE APEX COURT APPROVED THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COUR T. 3 I.T.A. NOS.1055 & 1054/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.89 7 90/ CHNY/18 MOREOVER, WHEN THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING VIEWS, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF A SSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL FO UND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION U NDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT '). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 3. THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOM E INFRUCTUOUS, THEREFORE, STAND DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A ND BOTH THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. ! ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NOS.1055 & 1054/CHNY/18 C.O. NOS.89 7 90/ CHNY/18 + -056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. -.)*/ RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL-1, CHENNAI 5. 69 -0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.