DCIT, Coimbatore V. M/s. T. Stanes & Co. Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 2243/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4210 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N GOPI KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I .T.A.NO.2243/CHNY/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, 63-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S.T.STANES & COMPANY LTD ., 8/23-14, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. [PAN AAACT 7126 P ] ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.GOPI KRISHNA, JCIT DR !' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,ADVOCATE # $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 0 7 - 201 8 '( %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 0 8 - 201 8 & / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, COIMBAT ORE DATED 23.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. WE HEARD SHRI N.GOPI KRISHNA, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ASS ESSMENT OF SALES TAX LIABILITY. THE SECOND ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDER ATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF ` 18,78,289/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FILED MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH ESE EVIDENCES WERE ITA NO.2243/CHNY/2016 :- 2 -: FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CL ARIFIED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OCCASIO N TO EXAMINE THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE, AND THE ENTIRE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( )* . ,-, ) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ' &( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / $ / CHENNAI 0 / DATED: 16 TH AUGUST, 2018. K S SUNDARAM 1 !%23 4 3% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # 5% () / CIT(A) 5. 378 !%9 / DR 2. !' / RESPONDENT 4. # 5% / CIT 6. 8: ;$ / GF