Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2402/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8761 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURUGABOOPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2402/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.75A (OLD NO.105A), DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AADCT 3409 P V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(1), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, ADDL. CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 15.06.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, CHE NNAI, DATED 30.06.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2 I.T.A. NO.2402/MDS/14 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER REPRODUCING THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ADMIN ISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER WHILE PASSING REVISION ORDER UNDER SEC TION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ADM INISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR ADJUDIC ATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE APPEAL IS DECIDED BY THE HIGH COURT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD.COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT STAYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THI S APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2402/MDS/14 BOOK PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED IN EXERCISE OF H IS REVISIONARY POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, BEFORE THIS TRI BUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL ADMITTEDLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ADMI NISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. N OW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE T HE HIGH COURT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTE R IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO KE EP THIS APPEAL PENDING TILL THE HIGH COURT DISPOSES OF THE APPEAL BEFORE IT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION THAT W AS GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWE R UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY CONFIRMED BY T HIS TRIBUNAL ALSO. MERELY BECAUSE AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE DIRECTION PA SSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT WAS CONFIRMED, THAT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NOT FOLLOWIN G THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. AS CLARIFIED BY T HE LD.COUNSEL 4 I.T.A. NO.2402/MDS/14 AND THE LD. D.R., THE PROCEEDING OF THIS APPEAL IS NOT STAYED BY THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS NO REAS ON TO KEEP THE MATTER PENDING. 5. SECTION 158A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR PROCEDURE T O BE FOLLOWED WHEN IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT, IN ORDER TO AVOID REPETITIV E APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION UNDER SECTION 158A OF THE ACT UNDERTAKING TO ACCEPT THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT WHEN THE MATTER IS SAID TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO KEEP THE MATTER PENDING. 6. COMING TO THE MERIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMIT TEDLY CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONE R AS CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 I.T.A. NO.2402/MDS/14 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI-34 4. 1 92 /CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.