Madura Coats Private Limited, Madurai V. DCIT, Madurai

ITA 2094/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7633 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVANJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: M R
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& ' () BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2094 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99) M/S.MADURA COATS PVT. LTD ., NEW JAIL ROAD, MADURAI. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),MADURAI. PAN AABM 8279 K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR. / RESPONDENT BY : MR.N.MADHAVAN,JCIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 24.03.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2016 . / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- I, MADURAI DATED 25.08.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ITA NO2094./MDS/2015 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.234D OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE ASSE SSEE RAISED THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO SHORT GRANTING OF INTEREST U/ S.244A OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN CERTAIN CASES NOT GRANTING INTEREST U/S .244A OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE ` 18,30,497/-. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U /S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2001. THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER UNDERWENT MANY REVISIONS BASED ON APPELLATE ORDERS, ORDER U/S 263 AND REASSESSMENT ORDERS. IN THE ORDER DATED 18-08-2 009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHARGED INTEREST U/S.234D AT ` 7,56,130/- AND ALLOWED MAT CREDIT AT ` 51,66,635/-. THE APPELLANT FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S.154 DATED 31.08.2009 IN WHICH IT WAS S TATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D WAS INTRODUCED BY FINANC E ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2003 AND THEREFORE, THE ABOVE SE CTION CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND REQUESTED THE AO TO CANCEL THE INTEREST U/S.234D. SIMILARLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN ALLOWING MAT CREDITS. T HE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN ALLOWING MAT ITA NO2094./MDS/2015 3 CREDIT AND, THEREFORE, REVISED THE ORDER TO ALLOW M AT CREDIT OF ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALTER THE INTEREST U/S.23 4D AT RS7,56,130/- WHICH WAS CHARGED IN THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2009. AG AINST THIS, ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL. ON THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT( A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IN OUR OPINION, SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.765 TO 769/MDS./14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91,1992-93,1994-95 & 1997 -98 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2015 WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HELD THAT:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST U/S.234D WAS CHAR GED BY THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE SE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION U/S.154 OF THE ACT SEEK ING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER SAYING THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY CHARGED THE IN TEREST U/S.234D OF THE ACT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TR IBUNAL AND IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154. ITA NO2094./MDS/2015 4 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.154 IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THERE WERE CLEAVAGE OF OPINIONS BETWEEN JUDICIAL FORUMS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM CONSTITUTION OF SPECIAL BENCH BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V. EKTA PROMOTE RS (P.) LTD. 113 ITD V. 719 (SB). THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING CHALLENGED THE OR DER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS TRIBUNAL, CANNOT QUESTION THE SAME IN PROCEEDI NGS U/S.154 OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE IS A DEBATABLE ONE. HAD THE ASS ESSEE ANY GRIEVANCE, IT COULD VERY WELL CHALLENGED THE REVISI ON ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO A VAIL THE CORRECT REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE IS A DE BATABLE ONE AND IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THERE IS NO ME RIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. ACCORDINGLY, WE FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KESHRI METAL P. LTD. ( 237 ITR 165), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.15 4 OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN O THER WORDS, A LOOK AT THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR, AND THAT ERROR MAY BE RECTIFIED. REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS OUTSIDE THE R ECORDS AND THE LAW IS IMPERMISSIBLE WHEN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SE C.154 OF THE ACT. HENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO2094./MDS/2015 5 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30 TH OF MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) ( ( () * + ) ) ! CHANDRA POOJARI ', JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH MARCH,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. -.,, /0,10 /COPY TO: , 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , 2,!' /CIT(A) 4. , 2 /CIT 5. 034, 5 /DR 6. 4&,6 /GF