DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Arihant Foundations & Housing Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 656/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4679 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA KUM AR BHANDARI
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS. 656 & 657/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(1), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. ARIHANT FOUNDATIONS & HOUSING LTD., 271,POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. PAN AAACA 7402 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P.GOPAKUMAR, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEVENDRA KUM AR BHANDARI, FCA O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THESE TWO AP PEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, AT CHENNAI DATED 14.1.2011 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA 656 & 657/11 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THESE CASES WERE ORIGINALLY C OMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS TO THE IN COME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N UNDER SEC.80IB(10) AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS OF THE CASE FOUND THAT THE DE DUCTION GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC.80IB(10) WAS NOT PROPER. HE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT O RDERS AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE UNDER SEC.80IB(10). 3. THE ASSESSMENTS IMPUGNED IN THESE APPEALS ARE TH E ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) AND BORN OUT OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX UNDER SEC.263. 4. THESE 263 BORN ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN IN APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHO ALLOWE D THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80IB(10). THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFO RE, THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 5. MEANWHILE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CH ENNAI A BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE REVISION ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITA 656 & 657/11 :- 3 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THEIR ORDER DATED 15. 12.2010 IN ITA NOS. 1165 & 1166/MDS/2009. THE TRIBUNAL HELD T HAT THE REVISION ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE REVISIO N ORDERS DO NOT SURVIVE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS COMPL ETED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THEMSELVES ARE INFRUCTUOUS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) ALSO HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND LIKEWISE THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, TOO. 6. IN RESULT, THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON WEDNESDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH JULY, 2011 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR