ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4131/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6781 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SHARMA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT SAINI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4131/DEL./2013 (FINANCIAL YEAR : 2002-03) ITO, WARD 51 (2), VS. M/S. RANGI INTERNATIONAL PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI. D 3/4, OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN : AACCR065BL) ITA NO.4132/DEL./2013 (FINANCIAL YEAR : 2003-04) ITO, WARD 51 (2), VS. M/S. RANGI INTERNATIONAL PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI. D 3/4, OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN : AACCR065BL) ITA NO.4133/DEL./2013 (FINANCIAL YEAR : 2004-05) ITO, WARD 51 (2), VS. M/S. RANGI INTERNATIONAL PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI. D 3/4, OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN : AACCR065BL) ITA NO.4134/DEL./2013 (FINANCIAL YEAR : 2005-06) ITO, WARD 51 (2), VS. M/S. RANGI INTERNATIONAL PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI. D 3/4, OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE-II, NEW DELHI 110 020. (PAN : AACCR065BL) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.4131 TO 4134/DEL./2013 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT SAINI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.07.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 26.07.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID INTER-CONNECTED APPEALS RAISING IDENT ICAL QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN ORDER TO AVOID THE REPETIT ION OF DISCUSSION. 2. THE APPELLANT, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 51 (2),, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE AFORESAID APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 18.04.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- XXX, NEW DELHI QUA THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04, 200 4-05 AND 2005-06 ON THE GROUND THAT :- THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS OF THE CASE BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154/155 O F THE I.T. ACT AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER WHIC H IS RECTIFIED HAS ALREADY MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 26.09.2006 EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IN FIRST APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE : INIT IALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 19.06.2006 UNDER SECTION 201/201A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ITA NOS.4131 TO 4134/DEL./2013 3 ACT) PERTAINING TO THE AFORESAID APPEALS QUA FINAN CIAL YEARS 2002- 03 TO 2005-06 AND CREATED A DEMAND OF RS.86,68,141/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND CORRESPONDING INTERES T AMOUNTING TO RS.35,47,048/- (TOTAL DEMAND RS.1,22,13,189/-). TH E AFORESAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO HAS DIS POSED OFF THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2006 AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. AND THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2006 PASSED BY CIT (A) HAS BEEN C HALLENGED AND PENDING DISPOSAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE AO RESORTED TO THE RECTIFICATION OF HIS ORDE R DATED 19.06.2006 BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 154/155 OF THE A CT DATED 19.03.2010 WHICH STOOD ALREADY QUASHED BY CIT (A) V IDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2006. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY LD. CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATIO N IN THIS CASE IS :- ITA NOS.4131 TO 4134/DEL./2013 4 AS TO WHETHER THE AO WAS COMPETENT / EMPOWERED TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 154/155 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2010 WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT SELF STOOD MERGED WITH THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2006 PASSED BY CIT (A)? 8. WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19. 06.2006 RAISING TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.1,22,13,189/- STANDS MER GED WITH ORDER DATED 26.09.2006 PASSED LD. CIT (A) IN APPEAL NO.2 61 TO 268/2006-07, THE SUBSEQUENT RECTIFICATION ORDER DAT ED 19.03.2010 PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. SO, BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF MER GER, THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 19.03.2010 HAS BEEN RIGHT LY AND LEGALLY QUASHED BY LD. CIT (A). SO, FINDING NO ILLEGALITY AND PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), WE HE REBY DISMISS AFORESAID APPEALS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (KULDIP SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE DAY OF JULY, 2016/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.