ACIT, Madurai V. M/s. Susee Engineering & Automobiles P Limited, Tirunelveli

ITA 299/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 29921714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 143(3); 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS.299, 300, 301 & 302(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. VS. M/S.SUSEE ENGINEERING & AUTOMOBILES P. LIMITED, 184/2, TRIVANDRUM ROAD, VANNARAPETTAI, TIRUNELVELI. PAN AAHCS8802L. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCAT E. O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2004-05, 2005-06, 200 6-07 AND - - ITA 299 TO 302 OF 2011 2 2007-08. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CO MMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I I AT MADURAI DATED 21-4-2010 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESS MENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 15 3C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE DELETION OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS TH E EXCESS AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF REG ISTRATION OF THE VEHICLES SOLD BY IT. THOSE AMOUNTS WERE ` 1,23,165/-; ` 1,35,660/-; ` 1,90,400/- AND ` 2,48,115/-, RESPECTIVELY. ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` .3,25,000/- EACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE ALLEGED UNDER-VALUATION OF STOCK OF SPA RES AT NAGERCOIL BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. 3. THE OTHER TWO ADDITIONS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARE ` 5,75,132/- AND ` 4,04,925/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK DIFFERENCE IN TIRUNELVELI BRANCH AND NAGER COIL BRANCH. - - ITA 299 TO 302 OF 2011 3 4. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS POINTED O UT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OF ` 4,04,925/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK IN THE CASE OF NAGERCOIL BR ANCH HAS BEEN AND IN FACT CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A WRONG GROU ND ON THAT ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF MISCONCEPTION THAT THE SAID A DDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS). 5. WE FIND THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) BY AND LARG E, ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES, PASSED IN APPEALS RELATING TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES, WHICH ARE BINDING ON HIM , WE CANNOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 6. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE WE FIND THAT THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. - - ITA 299 TO 302 OF 2011 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 8 TH AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.