National Soap Mills, Ludhiana V. CIT II, Ludhiana

ITA 321/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0056 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NONEWRITTEN SUBMISSION
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.321/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) NATIONAL SOAP MILLS, VS. THE C.I.T-II, VILLAGE PAWA, G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AADFN6737C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE(WRITTEN SUBMISSION) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II, LUDHIANA DATED 29.2.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07- 08, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON 12.11.2009 AT AN INCOME OF RS.50,74,500/ -. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE LEARNED 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTICED CERTAIN FEATURES AND CONSIDERED THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AS FAR AS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. A NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.8.2011 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE ARE REPRODUCE D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AT PAGES 1 A ND 2 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE GAVE VARIOUS REPLIES T O THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE INVOKED THE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGA RD TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES WERE ALSO MADE. AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE ASPECTS NOTED BY HIM IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT A ND FAILED TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN THIS VIEW. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD TO B E ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I N CONSEQUENCE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER AFRESH ON THE ISSUES KEEPING IN VIEW THE RELE VANT LEGAL POSITION AND FACTS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO FILE W RITTEN 3 SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.1.2016 AND REQUESTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THESE SUBMISSIONS ONLY. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO POINT OU T CERTAIN FACTUAL MISTAKES IN THE NOTICE AS WELL AS T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE M ERITS OF THE CASE ARE ALSO MADE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT AFTER THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUD HIANA PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT AS ON 18.5.2013 MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS.12,10,106/-, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA, WHO VI DE HER ORDER DATED 17.9.2015 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE, AS SUCH NO TAX LIABILITY IS THERE ON THE ASSESSEE A ND ITS EARLIER ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.50,74,500/- STANDS AL LOWED. COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WE LL AS THE CIT (APPEALS) RESPECTIVELY WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE U S. 4. ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE DATED 17.9.2015 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE I.T. A.T. THE LEARNED D.R. EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO STATE A NYTHING IN THIS REGARD. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING THE LEARNED D.R., WE UNDER STAND THAT IN CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF 4 INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ADDITI ONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH GOT DELET ED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN TOTALITY. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUBSISTING AT THIS STAGE. THE I SSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BECOME ACADEMIC AND, THEREFORE, NEED NO ADJUDICATION AS SAME WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S DISPOSED OFF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH