Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1287/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 128721714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J CHANDRASEKARAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1287/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 TAMIL NADU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD NO.2, WALLAJA ROAD CHENNAI 600 002 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAACT 3453 H] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J. CHANDRASEKARAN, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCI T / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 1 1 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 12 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, CHENN AI, DATED 27.1.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS REOPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3. SHRI J. CHANDRASEKARAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE A SSESSMENT AFTER ITA NO.1287/15 :- 2 -: EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, EARLIER THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 5.12.2008, THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEAR S FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT WAS MADE ON 5.12.2008. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DISCLOSING A REVISED FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ONCE THE CLOSING STOCK OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS REVISED, THE REVISED FIGURE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS OPEN ING STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, T O THAT EXTENT, THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISCLOSING THE CORRECT FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK. HENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BEYOND FOUR YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISC LOSING THE RIGHT CLOSING STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED OUT BY THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT ITA NO.1287/15 :- 3 -: YEAR 2005-06 COMPUTING THE REVISED FIGURE OF CLOSIN G STOCK. ONCE THE CLOSING STOCK WAS REVISED, THE VERY SAME FIGURE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS OPENING STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISC LOSING THE CORRECT OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CO NSEQUENT TO THE REVISION OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE REVISED RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSMENT WAS RIGHTLY REOPENED TO CHANGE THE OPENING STOCK FIGURE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DEPRECIA TION. SHRI J. CHANDRASEKARAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE DEPRECIATI ON SCHEDULE ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. HOWEVER, HE HAS TAKEN THE INCOME WHICH WAS DISCLOSE D IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. ONCE THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND CLOSING STOCK WAS TAKEN AS PER THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, THE INCOME SHOULD ALSO BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY. 7. WE HEARD SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR ALSO. ITA NO.1287/15 :- 4 -: 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RET URN AND REVISED THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCESSED THE RETURN U/S 143(3) AND ACCEPTED THE SAME. ONCE THE REVISED RETURN WAS ACCEPTED, DEPREC IATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY ON THE WDV AS DETERMINED IN THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN, THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS ` 2,12,97,601/- TAKEN INSTEAD OF THE INCOME RETURNED IN REVISED RETURN OF ` 2,44,88,145/-. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSING TH E REVISED CLOSING STOCK AND DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE, THE INCOME SHOWN I N THE REVISED RETURN HAS ALSO TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HO WEVER, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1287/15 :- 5 -: ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF