Hyundai Motors India Limited, Kancheepuram V. Additional CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2017/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57984 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2017MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO. H-1, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK, IRRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDUR TK. KANCHEEPURAM DIST.,TAMILNADU. PIN : 602 105 V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, CHENNAI. (PAN: AAACH2364M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 22-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 4/02/2012 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), CHENNAI IN F.NO. DR P/CHENNAI/SECTT./016/2010- 11 DATED 28-09-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2010 2 2. SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED DRP HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED THE AP PLICATION WAS GENERAL MANAGER, TAXATION WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO VERIFY AND SIGN THE APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 140 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THE TIME OF HEARING BY THE DRP AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED A LETTER DATED 20-08-2010 WHEREIN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT IF THE L EARNED DRP CONSIDERED SIGNING OF THE FORM 35A BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IS MANDATO RY, SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE SAME MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LETTER DATED 20-08-2010 WAS FILED ON 23- 08-2010 BEFORE THE LEARNED DRP, STILL WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE THE DRP DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES PETITION IN LIMINE . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED D RP TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT POINTED OUT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE FORM 35A HAS TO BE SIGNED B Y A PERSON MENTIONED IN SECTION 140 OF THE ACT OR NOT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE INTO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED OF GOING AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THE I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2010 3 VERIFICATION AND SIGNING BY THE PERSONS MENTIONED I N SECTION 140, IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP. HOWEVER, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IF THE AS SESSEE IS WILLING TO HAVE THE DEFECT CORRECTED BY GETTING THE APPLICATION VERIFIE D AND SIGNED BY THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 140 OF THE ACT, THEN THE ISSUE S MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED DRP FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DRP AT PARA 4.1 SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED DRP HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE GENER ALA MANAGER, TAXATION HAS SIGNED THE APPLICATION. A PERUSAL OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 20-08-2010 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT IF THE DRP WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN REGARD TO THE SIGNING OF THE APPLICATION, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO RECTI FY THE DEFECT. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR AN OPP ORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT, THE LEARNED DRP OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED THIS OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED DRP WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPP ORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE IT AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS AGREED TO HAVE THE I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2010 4 APPLICATION SIGNED BY THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECT ION 140 OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24/02/2 012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE