DCM Hyundai Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1394/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96580 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(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: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR U ANJANEYALU
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Section: 263

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.1394/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S DCM HYUNDAI LTD NO.2 GROUND FLOOR SRI RAM NAGAR PRAKASH NAGAR MAIN ROAD THIRUNINRAVUR 602 024 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(4) CHENNAI [PAN AAACK 2712 K] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA /RESPONDENT BY : DR. U . ANJANEY A LU, CIT / 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)-I, CHENNA I, DATED 17.2.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY AN ORDER DATED 23.12.2009. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISS IONER BY AN ORDER ITA NO.1394/15 :- 2 -: DATED 29.3.2012 FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASS ESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.1125/MDS/2012. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 6.1.2014 FOUND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFI CATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER DATED 29.3.2012 AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF THE CIT(A) ABOUT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 6.1.2014. A CCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 21.2.2015 AND SOUGHT PERMISSION OF THE CIT(A) TO WITHDRAW THE APP EAL ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 6.1.2014. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE WITHD RAWN THE APPEAL. IT IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER BY AN ORDER DATED 6.1.2014, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT STAND, THEREF ORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, BY ITA NO.1394/15 :- 3 -: MISTAKE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HEARD DR. U.ANJANEYALU, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE ALSO. 5. ADMITTEDLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIV E COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATE D 6.1.2014, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTI AL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.3.2013 HAS NO INDEPENDE NT LEG TO STAND. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. INSTEAD, HE DISMISSED THE SAME AS WITHDRAWN. WHEN THIS TRIBUNA L ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AD MINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER CANNOT STAND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A CONFUSION ON BOTH SIDES AND TH E ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASON, NOW THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMI SSIONER U/S 263 ITA NO.1394/15 :- 4 -: OF THE ACT CANNOT STAND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 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