CLP Power India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 614/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Section: 143(3); 192

Judgement Text

ITA NO.614/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT, PRESIDENT AND PRAMOD KUM AR, VICE PRESIDENT] ITA NO.614/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 CLP POWER INDIA PVT LTD ...... ......APPELLANT 6 TH FLOOR, CHANAKYA BUILDING, OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD [PAN : AAACP 6900 B] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .. .. RESPONDENT CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY PM MEHTA FOR THE APPELLANT OP SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 13.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15 TH JANUARY 2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), AHMEDA BAD-5, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S . 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOL LOWS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE ITAT AGAINST ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE AC T AND THE SAME IS NOT YET DECIDED BY THE ITAT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF AO DENYING CARRY FORWARD OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 63,97,536/- AND RS 8,60,45,753/- PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY BY INVOKING PROVIS ION OF SECTION 79 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE BENEFICI AL OWNER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY REMAINS THE SAME. THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED AND SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.614/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED INTO NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHEN A PROVISION IS CAPABLE OF MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THEN VIE W IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE TAKEN AS ENVISAGED BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD, REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 AS THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY DECISION OF HON'BL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD. REPORTED IN 62 TAXMANN.COM 350. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT VID E ORDER DATED 23 RD APRIL 2018 THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE VERY REVISION ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS A CONSEQUENCE TO WHICH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US. LEARNED COUNS EL SUBMITS THAT THE WHEN THE REVISION ORDER ITSELF IS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL, T HE REVISION PROCEEDINGS HAS NO LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE FOUNDATION AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS/ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT DIS PUTE THE PRELIMINARY POINT SO RAISED BUT RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVERTHELESS. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ONCE THE VERY REVISION ORDER, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED, IS QUASHED, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN RENDE RED INFRUCTUOUS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE AND HEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 27 TH AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR (PRESIDENT) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BT* ITA NO.614/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: 23.08.2019 2. DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER: 23.08.2019 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: .....27.08.2019........................ ... 4. DT. ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .27.08.2019... ..... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: . .... 27.08.2019................... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ..... 7. THE DT. ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASTT. REGISTR AR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: .................. ....... 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: .................... ....