ABT Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1602/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7484 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A.S.SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Rule 8D
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , !'. . # $ % , ' () BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1602/MDS/2016 * +* /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S. A B T LIMITED, 180, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018. VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, COIMBATORE. [PAN: AABCA 8398 K ] ( ,- /APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT # 0 2' /DATE OF HEARING : 25.01.2017 34+ 0 2' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.03.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, COIMBATORE, IN ITA NO.280/13-14 FOR THE AY 2007-08. 2.0 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.NIL ON 02.11.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE -OPENED BY ISSUING ITA NO.1602/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: NOTICE U/S 148 ON 29.03.2012. RE-ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.94,59,282/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AN D RS.12,03,55,393/- U/S.115JB OF INCOME TAX ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD.CIT(A)) AND THE LD .CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3.0 THE ASSESSEE RAISED TOTAL 13 GROUNDS IN THIS APPEA L RELATING TO NON- ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSI NG THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OTHER CONDITIONS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWAN CE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX ACT, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES RELATIN G TO LEASEHOLD PREMISES AND DEPRECIATION, ETC. 4.0 DURING THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD.AR) ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT M ADE U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASS ED THE ORDERS WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL. THE LD.A.R FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS REPO RTED IN 259 ITR 19. THEREFORE, THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT THE CASE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF ITA NO.1602/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDIT Y OF RE-ASSESSMENT CLAIMED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS LD.DR) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.0 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BUT NOT ADJUDICATED UPO N BY THE LD.CIT(A). IT IS SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE JURISDICTIO N OF RE-ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE OBJECTIONS FOR NOT FOL LOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19 (CITED SUPRA). THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDE RED AND ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT A ND THE JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E CASE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECID E THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS SET-ASIDE AND THE ISSUE I S REMITTED BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE RE-OP ENING OF ASSESSMENT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS. ITA NO.1602/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . . # $ % ) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED: 17 TH MARCH, 2017. TLN 0 .2$6 76+2 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 4. # 82 /CIT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 5. 69 .2 /DR 3. # 82 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. '* < /GF