DCIT, CHENNAI V. Indian Bank, CHENNAI

ITA 1234/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3982 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SWAMINATHAN
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !.. # $%, ' () BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1234/MDS/2016 + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S INDIAN BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AAACI 1607 G (.// APPELLANT) (01.// RESPONDENT) ./ 2 3 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT 01./ 2 3 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SWAMINATHAN, CA # 2 4' / DATE OF HEARING : 18.10.2016 56, 2 4' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -6, CHENNA I, DATED 01.03.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER UN DER SECTION 154 2 I.T.A. NO.1234/MDS/16 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') DI SALLOWED THE EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE A PPEAL ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APP EALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK IN I.T.A. NOS.551, 552, 553/MDS/ 2009 DATED 18.12.2009. IN FACT, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK WAS RECALLED BY AN ORDER DATED 16.12.2010. THE TRI BUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RECONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI S. SWAMINATHAN, THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BY PLACING RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK (SUPRA). TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THIS TRI BUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. THEREFORE, THE RECALL OF THE ORDER BY THIS 3 I.T.A. NO.1234/MDS/16 TRIBUNAL IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK (SUPRA) WOULD NOT MA TERIALLY AFFECT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MERGED WITH ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS ) AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE GUISE OF EX ERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT DISTURB THE ORD ERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER DATED 31.03.2013, DISALLOWED TH E DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,30,20,57,500/-. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE C IT(APPEALS) BY AN ORDER DATED 06.03.2014, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, APPARENTLY, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK (SUPRA). THE REVENUE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL AND THIS APPEAL CONF IRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). SUBSEQUENTLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE ORDER IN LAKSHMI VILAS BANK (SUPRA) WAS RECALLED AND THE MAT TER WAS 4 I.T.A. NO.1234/MDS/16 REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ORDER IN THE ASSES SEES APPEAL, PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS NOT DISTURBED AND IN FACT, A DMITTEDLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS CONFIRMED BY THIS TRI BUNAL. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS MERGED WITH ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DISTURB THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E GUISE OF EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE AC T. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ALTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) OR OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . . # $% ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER 5 I.T.A. NO.1234/MDS/16 /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. KRI. 2 04$9 :9,4 /COPY TO: 1. ./ /APPELLANT 2. 01./ /RESPONDENT 3. # ;4 () /CIT(A) 4. # ;4 /CIT, 5. 9< 04 /DR 6. !+ = /GF.