ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Chettinad Logisctics Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 3059/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7779 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3059/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., RANI SEETHAI HALL, V FLOOR, 603, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 006. PAN : AABCC4551C ( /APPELLANT) ( !' /RESPONDENT) # /APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT !' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE # /DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2017 # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, CHENNAI DATED 29.08.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.3059/MDS/2016 2. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY THE I MPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CI T BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.813/MDS/2013. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT I S NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS SET ASIDE. THE CIT (APPE ALS) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF THE O RDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT. REFERRING TO GROUND NO.2.2 RAISED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. D.R., SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA 813/MDS/2 013 AND THE SAME IS PENDING. THEREFORE, THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT JU STIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LD. D.R., FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THEREFO RE, THE TRADING LOSS WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCRUAL BASIS. 3 I.T.A. NO.3059/MDS/2016 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A. SRIRAMAN, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. NOW THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS SET ASIDE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. NOW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIO NER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS SET ASIDE BY THIS TRIBUN AL. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE D.R. IS THAT AN APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER O F TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STAY, BY THE HIGH COURT, MERE PENDENCY OF APPEA L CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THEREFORE, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY F OUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW ESP ECIALLY WHEN 4 I.T.A. NO.3059/MDS/2016 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONERS ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT WAS SET ASIDE BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( )/CIT(A)-1, CHENNAI 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.