Dr.S.Samundi Sankari, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2918/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3983 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RENGA RAJAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2918 & 2919/CHNY/2017 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 & 2000-01 ./ ITA NO.1485/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 DR. S. SAMUNDI SANKARI, NO.129, HABIBULLAH ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : ANEPS 8276 R V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y. SRIDHAR, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RENGARAJAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2019 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNAI AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR 2 I.T.A. NOS.2918 & 2919/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NO.1485/CHNY/18 CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI Y. SRIDHAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 30.0 6.2009, REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME SO THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET THE BENEFI T OF LOSS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. (198 ITR 297). THIS ORDER WAS, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N 04.08.2009 AND THE COMMISSIONER RECEIVED THE ORDER ON 13.07.20 09. REFERRING TO SECTION 153(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT 'THE ACT'), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH SUB-C LAUSE (1) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR 21 MONTHS FOR C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, WHEN AN ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPE CTED TO COMPLETE THE FRESH ASSESSMENT WITHIN 9 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE PRINCIPAL COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMMISSION ER RECEIVED THE 3 I.T.A. NOS.2918 & 2919/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NO.1485/CHNY/18 ORDER ON 13.07.2009. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RECEIVED THE ORDER ON 04.08.2009, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT OR DER CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL UND ER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT, WAS PASSED ON 30.03.2015. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF MORE THAN 4-1/2 YEARS IN PASSING THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S. RENGARAJAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ADMITTEDLY, THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 30.06.2009, REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR ALL THE THREE ASSES SMENT YEARS. THIS ORDER WAS ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON 04.08.2009 AND BY THE COMMISSIONER ON 13.07.2009. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ADMITTEDLY PASSED ON 30.03.2015. THEREFORE, ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A DELAY OF MORE TH AN 4-1/2 YEARS IN PASSING THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RE CEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.06.2009. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- 4 I.T.A. NOS.2918 & 2919/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NO.1485/CHNY/18 TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, REASSESSME NT AND RECOMPUTATION. 153 (1) .. . .. .. .. (2) .. .. .. .. .. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (2), AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT , MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UN DER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIO NER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SEC TION 264 IS PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS B OUND TO PASS AN ORDER WITHIN 9 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT O F THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE COMMISSIONER. ADMITTEDLY, THE ORDE R WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN 9 MONTHS, FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIP T OF ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THERE WAS A DELAY OF 4-1/2 YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. 5 I.T.A. NOS.2918 & 2919/CHNY/17 I.T.A. NO.1485/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KRI. / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, CHENNAI 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.