Sundaram Clayton Ltd., CHENNAI V. Addl. CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 202/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68784 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 202/MDS/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. NO.29, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. PAN:AAACS4920J VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY RANGE-VI CHENNAI-600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR. SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, CHEN NAI IN ITA NO.394/2011-12 DATED 31.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. THE MAIN GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS I NFRUCTUOUS. APART FROM THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VAR IOUS GROUNDS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.202/MDS//2013 2 WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. 2. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ON A P ETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RECALLED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL BY A SEP ARATE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 IN ITA NOS.39 & 394/2011-12. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS FILED BEFORE US. THEREF ORE THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RECALLED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISPO SED OFF THE APPEAL, THE APPEAL BEFORE US FILED BY THE ASSES SEE MAY BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NOS. 39 & 394/2011-1 2 DATED 28.03.2013. ON READING OF PARA 7.1 OF THE ABOVE ORD ER, WE SEE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) R ECALLED HIS EARLIER ORDER PASSED ON 31.10.2012, WHEREIN THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME ITA NO.202/MDS//2013 3 TAX (APPEALS) ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES ON MERITS BY RECALLING HIS EARLIER ORDER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS, AS THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RECALLED HIS EARLIER ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 AGAINST WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, T HE 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4 ) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5 ) D.R. (3) CIT (6 ) G.F.