Florind Shoes P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 599/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5799 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARV SREENIVASAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Audit objection; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 599/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. FLORIND SHOES P. LTD., 29, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 095. [PAN: AAACF 0490J] VS. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE )*% & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ARV SREENIVASAN, JCIT & /DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2017 /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 167/CIT(A)-6/20 13-14 DATED 31.01.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. M/S. FLORIND SHOES P. LTD., THE ASSESSEE, IS AN EXPORTER OF LEATHER SHOES. THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 AND COMPLETED THE ASSES SMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON :-2-: ITA NO. 599/MDS/2017 15.03.2013, WHILE DOING SO, THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 2 ,11,50,000/- REPRESENTING 4,50,000 US DOLLARS PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO TH IS YEAR. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DISALLOWANCE OF THE IMPUGNED PAYMEN T. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ONCE AGAIN CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DISALLOWANCE O F THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,11,50,000/-. 3. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTA INING THE RE-ASSESSMENT BY REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS. PER CONTRA, THE DR INVITED OR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THE FOLLOW ING FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A): THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT ANY CON VINCING EVIDENCE BEFORE ME THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS CONS IDERED AND A VIEW TAKEN. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRESENTED ME THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND A VIEW TAKEN. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT DETAILS ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WERE CA LLED, OR THAT A DEFINITE FINDING WAS ARRIVED AT ON THE ISSUE. HENC E, THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE. I T OLD THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE GOOD IN LAW. THE TECHNICAL GROUN DS RAISED ON THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STAND DISMISS ED AND PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS NOT RIGHT . 4. THE AR REBUTTED SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE OBJECTE D TO THE RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A). I N THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT IN INDIA AND EASTERN NEW SPAPER VS CIT (1979) 119 ITR :-3-: ITA NO. 599/MDS/2017 996 (SC) AND PLEADED THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS ON A POINT OR OPINION OF LAW DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INFORMATION FOR RE-OPENING. THIS ISSU E HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE CIT(A) AND HENCE HIS ORDER MAY BE DELETED. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN AD EQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE CIT(A) AS CANVASSED BY THE AR, AND HENCE THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO/ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY A SPEAKING ORDER. ON THE OTHER ISSUE, WE DO NOT EXPR ESS ANY OPINION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ! ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 JPV & )12 32 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 ) /DR 6. 7 /GF