TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI V. JT CIT SP RG 1, MUMBAI

ITA 4307/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4305 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATHA R SWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYASAR
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- E,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER /.ITA NO.9096 & 9097/MUM/2010, /ASSESSMENT YEAR-1992-93 & 1993-94 DCIT-2(3), ROOM NO.-555 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI VS. M/S. TATA SONS LTD. BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODI STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN NO.AAACT 4060 A ( / ASSESSEE ) ( / RESPONDENT) /.ITA NO. 4307/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993-94) M/S. TATA SONS LTD. FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. VS. DCIT-2(3), ROOM NO.-555 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. ( / ASSESSEE ) ( / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY :SH. DINESH VYAS-AR / REVENUE BY :SH. MANJUNATHA R. SWAMY-CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 11 -2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01. 2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DT.5.5.10 AND 7.10.2010 OF T HE CIT(A)-VI, MUMBAI THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS.THE ASSESS EE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT-2, DATED 6.7.2010,PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT.AS ALL THE APPEALS ARE RELATED WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE,SO FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE ARE ADJUDICATIN G ALL THE THREE APPEALS BY A SINGLE COMMON ORDER. ITA/9096/MUM/2010(AY92-93): 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.1 2.92 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1, 15, 56, 340/-.LATER ON A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.3.94.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.3.1995 DETE RMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 40.44 CRORES.THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNA L AND VIDE ITS ORDER DT.8.12.2006 IT DECIDED SOME GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED BACK CERTAIN ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO.THE AO GAVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. VIDE HIS ORDER DT.12.2.2007,CIT- 2,MUMBAI,INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263,DIR ECTED THE AO TO PASS FRESH ORDER WITH REGARD TO DOUBLE TAX RELIEF ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSES SEE.THE ASSESSEE , VIDE ITS LETTER DATE 12.10.2009 AND 20.10.09 MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO IN THAT REGARD .HOWEVER, THE AO VIDE ITS ORDER DT.16.11.09 WITHDREW THE DIT RELIEF ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1.97 CRORES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA),WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF IN RESPECT OF TAX PAID ON FO REIGN DIVIDEND BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH.THE DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4.2.2015(ITA/3462-65/MUM/2009- AY.S.1992-93,1993-94 & 1995-96) 9096 & 97 TATA SONS 2 HAD QUASHED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT, THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO WOULD NOT SURVIVE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE REVISIONARY ORDERS OF THE CIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION APPEAL FILED BY THE AO HAS TO BE DIS MISSED. ITA/9097/MUM/2010-(93-94): 5. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL A RE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER YEAR.THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR AY 92-93 WE DISMISS THE APP EAL FILED BY THE AO. ITA/4307/MUM/2011 (AY 93-94) ASSESSES APPEAL: 6. AS STATED EARLIER,THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE O RDER OF THE CIT-2 DATED 6.7.2010 PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT.AS PER THE CIT THE AO HAD GIVEN EFFECT TO THE REVISIONARY ORDER OF CIT ON 16.11.2009,THAT WHILE DOING SO,HE HAD ALLOWED DEDUC TION U/S. 80HHE OF RS.55.39 LACS.AS PER THE CIT THE AO HAD NOT COMPUTED THE DEDUCTION AS PE R THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT.HE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 16.11.2009 AND DIRE CTED HIM TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT. 7 .DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE AR CONT ENTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE CIT, PASSED U/S. 263, HAD BEEN REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4.2.2015(SUPRA), THAT THE SECOND ORDER OF THE CIT DATED 6.7.2010 WOULD NO T SURVIVE. THE DR STATED THAT MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE FIND THAT TH E CIT HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 WITH REGARD TO ORDER PASSED BY THE AO I N PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE FIRST TIME.AS THE O RIGINAL ORDER HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL,SO,THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER WOULD STAND QUASHE D AUTOMATICALLY.EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE A Y . S . STAND DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. . . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016. 01 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( /SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 01.01.2016 . . . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.