M/s Chaitanya Properties (P) Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1037/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8513 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASON P BOAZ
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ D PUKHALE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1037/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., REGD. OFFIE: SHANTINIKETAN, SADARMANGALA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 048. : APPELLANT VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(2), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ D. PUKHALE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER DATED 10.9.2009. THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(APPEALS) EMANATES FROM THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY T HE AO REQUESTING TO DELETE SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 3.5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 9.7.2008. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL REA DS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.1037/BANG/09 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CATEGORICALLY ADM ITTED WITH REGARD TO THE FACTUAL POSITION WHICH WAS BEING DISP UTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE MP OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS CLEARLY MISCONCEIVED. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT HIS ORDER WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPO RT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ENTIRETY AND THEREFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS PLEA HAS RESULTED IN REVIEWING HIS OWN ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVING CONSI DERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED BE FORE HIM WHICH WAS EXTRACTED VERBATIM, THE SUCCESSOR CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISLODGED A FINDING ALREADY GIVEN. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE BEING NO ERROR APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND MOREOVER THE SAID ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVING BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE ITAT, TH E CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN EARLIER. 3. IT IS TO BE MENTIONED IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ISSUE THAT IS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN ELABORATELY CONSIDERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1141/08 VIDE PARAS 9.2.2 TO 9.2.5. THEREFORE, T HE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED AS S UCH. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST MARCH, 2010. DS/- ITA NO.1037/BANG/09 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.