M/s The Teloijan Tea Co Ltd., Kolkata V. C.I.T kol - II, Kolkata

ITA 159/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5143 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 263

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 159/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 159/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 M/S. THE TELOIJAN TEA CO. LIMITED,................. ..............APPELLANT 34, RAJA SANTOSH ROAD. KOLKATA-700 027 [PAN : AAACT 9763 C] -VS.- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,........................ .............RESPONDENT KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 08, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 13, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA DAT ED 15.03.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING, PURCHAS E AND SALE OF TEA. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 03.12.2010, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DE TERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT A LOSS OF RS.48,63,187/-. THE RECORDS OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD, CIT AND O N SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT INTEREST INCOME WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS A PART OF COMPOSITE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH RULE 8 APPLIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT, THE INTEREST INCOME THUS WAS CHARGED A T LOW RATE OF TAX BY THE I.T.A. NO. 159/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3), WHICH WAS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 263 CALLING FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, IT W AS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RAISE D BY HIM IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 IS ALREADY COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO NS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND THE HONBLE ITAT HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTME NT AND FURTHER APPEAL U/S 260A HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFO RE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ISSUE HA S GONE BEYOND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR ADJUDICATION ENT AILS THAT THE FINAL WORD HAS TO COME FROM THE COURT(S). THE LAW ON THIS DISPUTE IS NOT SETTLED AS YET. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO RE- COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT DURING THE COURSE OF PR OCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263, THE ISSUE RELATING TO INCLUSION OF INT EREST IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO WHICH RULE 8 APPLIED, WAS ALREA DY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND THIS POSITION WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. CIT. HE, HOWEVER, STILL PROCEED ED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN DER SECTION 143(3) ON THIS ISSUE ON THE GROUND THAT AN APPEAL WAS PREF ERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THI S ISSUE. WE ARE UNABLE I.T.A. NO. 159/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 TO AGREE WITH THIS CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT. THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW IN PLACE OF SUCH POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME WAS F ILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 AND RESTORE THAT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 13, 2 016. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. THE TELOIJAN TEA CO. LIMITED, 34, RAJA SANTOSH ROAD. KOLKATA-700 027 (2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOLKA TA (4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (5) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.