Southern Roadways Limited, Madurai V. DCIT, Madurai

ITA 321/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3918 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAHADEVAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: R SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 148; 154

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.321/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1973-74 M/S SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LIMITED, LAKSHMI BUILDINGS KOCHADAI, MADURAI 625 016. PAN : AACCS 1478 B V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2, MADURAI. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2016 / 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) -1, MADURA I, DATED 16.12.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74. 2 I.T.A. NO.321/MDS/16 2. SHRI R. SRINIVASAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY AN O RDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T 'THE ACT') ON 21.08.1973 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1972-73. THE IS SUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1972-73 WAS WITH REGARD TO COMPENSA TION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUISITION OF PASSENG ER BUS SERVICE RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74 AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1972-7 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASS ESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD.COUNSE L SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED BY LIMI TATION. EVEN THOUGH THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR TAKING OVER OF PASSENGER BUS SERVICE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS ASSESSABLE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1973- 74, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74 WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LI MITATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 3 I.T.A. NO.321/MDS/16 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBM ITTED THAT A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COUR T CHALLENGING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE WRIT PETITION, FOUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT W AS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CASE IN A RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND A REVIEW PETITION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE REVIEW PETITION IS STILL PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BY TH E HIGH COURT. SINCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1973-74 ATTAINED FINALITY, IT CANNOT BE REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSING THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUISITION OF PASSENGER BUS SERVICE BY THE STA TE GOVERNMENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E HIGH COURT BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT WAS VALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE O F THE MADRAS HIGH 4 I.T.A. NO.321/MDS/16 COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE MATTER BEFORE THE DIVISION BENC H OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH ALSO AFFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE. THE SLP FILED BEFORE THE APEX COURT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF LIMITA TION ATTAINED ITS FINALITY. NOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL THAT THE REVIEW PETITION WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW ARGUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE MADR AS HIGH COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION IN A RIG HT PERSPECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ARGUE THE CASE EITHER BEFORE THE HI GH COURT OR BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THIS KIND OF ARGUMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE MADRAS HIGH COURT CONSI DERED THIS ISSUE AND FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. IN FACT, THE ORDE R WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTI ON OF THE MADRAS 5 I.T.A. NO.321/MDS/16 HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE O RDER OF THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH AND THE DIVI SION BENCH ALSO CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE AND AF FIRMED THAT THE ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74 WAS WI THIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE SLP FILED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE APEX COURT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF LIMITAT ION CANNOT BE RE- AGITATED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ONCE AGAIN. WHEN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE DIVISION BENCH AND THE SLP WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE APEX CO URT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE THE CASE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ONCE AGAIN. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER 6 I.T.A. NO.321/MDS/16 /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-1, MADURAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, MADURAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.