Ideal Garden Complex Private limited, Salem V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 635/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7102 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALAMELULAKSHMINARAYAN JDIE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . . ! , '# BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A NOS. 634 TO 638/MDS/2014. ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03 TO 2006-07) M/S. IDEAL GARDEN COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED, 7/54, JUNCTION MAIN ROAD,FIVE ROADS, SALEM [PAN:AAACI4670H] ( $% /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, SALEM. ( &'$% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. VIKRAMVIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ALAMELULAKSHMINARAYAN, JDI(E) /DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8.08.2014. ( / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 TO 2006-07; EMANATE FROM DIFFERENT ORDERS; ALL DATED 2 6.12.2003 PASSED ITA NOS.63 4 TO 638/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM IN ITA NOS.180 TO 183/2010-11 &ITA NO.44/2008-09RESPECTIVELY, IN P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT] 02. THE ASSESSEE RAISES THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL GRO UNDS IN ALL CASES. 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN DECIDI NG THE APPEAL IGNORING THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT TO KEE P THE PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SP ECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN SUSTAINING THE REASSESSMENT. THE REASSE SSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF TH E HONOURABLE DELHI COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V VS. ORI ENT CRAFT LTD 354 ITR 536 . IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, BOTH PARTIES CLARIFY THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS IS ONLY QUA VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THEREFORE, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.634/MDS/2014 ASTHE LEAD CASE. 03. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT OPERATES A COM MERCIAL COMPLEX ON LEASE HOLD LAND. AFTER CONSTRUCTING A BUILDIN G ON 31.10.2002, IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN ADMITTING INCOME OF ` . 8,27,035/-. THE SAME WAS ITA NOS.63 4 TO 638/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: SUMMARILY PROCESSED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED SEC.148 NOTICE DATED 31.03.20 09. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE RETURN ALREADY FILED. 04. IN THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE TAKEN LAND ON LEASE, RAISED CO NSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND LEASED OUT THE PREMISES ON L EASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED LEASE RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS INC OME. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 TO 1997-98 AS WELL, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY WHICH WAS UPHELD UP TO THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN LIGHT THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE LEASE RECEIPTS PERTAI NING TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN ORDER DATED 28.12.2010 RESULTING IN TAXABLE INCOME OF ` .14,22,560/-. 05. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. IN LOWER APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT APPEARS TO HAVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS THAT ITS ITA NOS.63 4 TO 638/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS PERTAINING TO EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS ARE PENDING. THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITS OWN CASE IN PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE I S AGGRIEVED. 06. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE CASE F ILE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF ADMITTED THAT IT HAD LOST VERY GROUND BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1992-93 TO 1997- 98. THE PARTIES SUPPLY COPY OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2011 IN ABOVESTATED ASSESSMEN T YEARS ON THE VERY ISSUE OF REOPENING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NO D ISTINCTION OF FACTS IS POINTED OUT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW O F THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES RETURN HAD ONLY BEEN PROCESSED U/S. 14 3(1), WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE SAME. THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. THE A SSESSEES APPEAL NO.634/MDS/20014 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.63 4 TO 638/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: 07 SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN ITA NOS.635/MDS/2014 TO 638/MDS/2014. TO SUM UP, ALL APPEALS ITA NOS. 634 TO 638/MDS/2014 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 8 TH OF AUGUST, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ! ) (S.S. GODARA) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' /DATED: 08.08.2014. K.V '# $%&% /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT3. ( ( )/CIT(A)4. ( /CIT5. %)* + /DR 6. *,- /GF.