Jyothy Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1527/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3923 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN C BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPITA
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1527/MDS/2016 / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD (AS TRANSFEREE COMPANY INTO WHICH M/S.HENKEL INDIA LIMITED HAS MERGED) UJALA HOUSE, RAM KRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, OFF ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400 059. PAN : AABCT0167F V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU-II, CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( !' / RESPONDENT) # / APPELLANT BY : MS. ARPITA, ADVOCATE !' # / RESPONDENT BY : MR. ARUN C. BHARATH, CIT # / DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2016 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 18.01.2016 CONSEQUEN T TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1527/MDS/2016 2. WE HEARD MS.ARPITA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND SHRI ARUN C BHARATH, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E. ADMITTEDLY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL REFUSED TO CONSIDER TH E OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE OBJECTION WA S FILED AFTER THE DELAY OF ONE DAY. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ON TH E GROUND THAT IT HAS NO POWER TO RECALL ITS EARLIER ORDER. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 04. 04.2015, THE OBJECTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 04. 05.2015. ADMITTEDLY 04.05.2015 WAS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY ON ACCOU NT OF BUDDHA PURNIMA. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED THE OBJECTION ON 05.05.2015 I.E., THE NEXT WORKING DAY. WHILE REJECTING THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 1 54, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ADMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SINCE THE SAME WAS FILED WITHI N THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HOWEVER, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE SAME. 3. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE OBJECTION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 30 D AYS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE DISPU TE RESOLUTION PANEL OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME ON MERIT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY SINCE THE OBJECTION WAS ADMITTEDLY FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1527/MDS/2016 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHA LL CONSIDER THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE T HE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( ) /CIT(A) 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.