DCIT, CHENNAI V. Rane Brake Lining Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1145/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9434 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1144 & 1145/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2003-04 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S RANE BRAKE LINING LTD 132, CATHEDRAL ROAD CHENNAI 600 086 [PAN AAACR 1703 L ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASDEEP SINGH, CIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 03 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 04 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF TH E SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. LET US FIRST TAKE UP I.T.A.NO.1144/MDS/2015 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ITA NOS.1144 & 1145/15 :- 2 -: 3. WE HEARD SHRI JASDEEP SINGH, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEA L IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DAT ED 10.12.2015, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEAL WHEREVER THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS. IN FACT, THE CBDT HAS INSTRUCTED ITS O FFICERS TO WITHDRAW EVEN THE PENDING APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL WHEREVER TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ACC ORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. NOW COMING TO I.T.A.NO.1145/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE LD. DR VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ADMINIST RATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.651/MDS/2008. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER D ATED 22.1.2009, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER PASSED U/S 263 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQ UENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. ITA NOS.1144 & 1145/15 :- 3 -: CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAN D DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 29 TH APRIL, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF