HEUBACH COLOUR P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1217/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ NISHAD

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1217/M/10, M/S HEUBACH COLOUR P. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYAR AGHAVAN, JM ITA NO. 1217/MUM/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD., 9003-9010, PHASE VI, GIDC ESTATE, ANKLESHWAR 393 002. PAN AAACH2578P VS. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI . 20 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI MILIN MEHTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANOJ NISHAD ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI DATED 30.11.09 WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME TO BE INFRUCTUOUS. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED BY THE A.O. I.E. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI U/S 143(1). WHILE DOING THE SAID PROCESSING, TAX @ 30% WAS CHARGED BY THE A.O. ON SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS AGAINST 10% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN CREDIT FOR ADVANCE TAX PAID AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGI NG THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN PROCESSING ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. I N THE SAID APPEAL, THE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. TO PROCESS ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) SOUGHT A REMA ND REPORT FROM THE A.O. I.E ACIT 2 ITA 1217/M/10, M/S HEUBACH COLOUR P. LTD. CIRCLE 6(3) MUMBAI, THE LATER INFORMED THE LD. CIT( A) VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DTD. 25.11.09 THAT HE HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEES CASE SINCE THE SAME WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED TO THE DCIT, BHARUCH VIDE TRANSFER MEMO DTD. 8.8.08. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE A.O., THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OFFICE WAS TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SA ME WAS DISMISSED BY HIM. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PR EFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SID ES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ITS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 30.04.08 WHEREAS THE ASSES SEES CASE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ACIT CIRCLE -6(3), MUMBAI TO DCIT, BHARUCH AS PER THE TR ANSFER MEMO DTD. 8.8.08 AS INFORMED BY THE FORMER VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DTD. 25.11.09 SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE ACIT -6(3) THUS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEES CASE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 30.4.08 AN D THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO DCIT BHARUCH SUBSEQUENTLY ON 8.8.08. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE TO THE CIT(A)- VI VADODARA INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE SAME BY TREATING IT AS IN FRUCTUOUS AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEF ORE US. EVEN THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ANY CONTENTION TO DISPUTE THIS POSITI ON. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATT ER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO TRANSFER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE CIT(A) V I, VADODARA WHO IS NOW HAVING THE JURISDICTION TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID APPEAL AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ( P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER , 2010. 3 ITA 1217/M/10, M/S HEUBACH COLOUR P. LTD. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 14 - MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- 6 MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, D 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 4 ITA 1217/M/10, M/S HEUBACH COLOUR P. LTD. DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED 25.10.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1.11.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER. - J.M./A.M. 4.DRAFT DISCUSSED/ APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. J.M./A.M. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. SR.P.S./P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S. 8. DATE OF WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.