R.Sekar, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 760/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90462 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N RENGARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALA BENCH:CHEN NAI . . . , . , ! '# $ [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] ./ I.T.A.NO. 760/MDS/2015 % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI R. SEKAR, NO.7C, KULAKARAI STREET, POSTAL NAGAR, ZAMIN ROYPET, CHENNAI 600 044. [PAN:BGCPS9565H] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2), CHENNAI. ( '( /APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO. 761/MDS/2015 % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI R. SUNDARAM, NO. 44, BIG STREET, ZAMIN ROYPET, CHENNAI 600 044. [PAN: BQFPS1745G] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2), CHENNAI. ( '( /APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, C.A. )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. RENGARAJ, CIT-DR - + .! / DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2015 /0& + .! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY TWO DI FFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)/(C) 19/II, CHENNAI COMMONLY DATED 31.12.2014. ITA ITA ITA ITA NO NONO NOS SS S. .. . 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 :- 2 -: 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL AND I T RELATES TO REJECTION OF ASSESSEES PRAYER FOR ADMITTING OF ADDITIONAL GROUN D RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE SAME AND THE GROUND REVOLVES AROUND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. CIT(A) FAILED TO GIVE DECISION ON MERITS OF TH E SAID CLAIM. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND IN BOT H THE APPEALS MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE THE C LAIM UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH CLAIM SHOULD BE MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME . THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6 IS RELEVANT HERE. WITH THIS BRIEF BACKGROUND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. V. CIT 284 ITR 323 AND OTHER BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. V. DCIT IN M.P. 1 OF 2014 ORDER DATED 17.09.20 14 AND DEMONSTRATED THE INVALID DECISION OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF MAKING A FRESH CL AIM IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IS RESTRICTED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND NOT TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INCLUDES THE LD. CIT(A) TOO. 4. ON CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR, WE APPROVE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITA ITA ITA ITA NO NONO NOS SS S. .. . 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 760 & 761/M/15 :- 3 -: THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) AND OT HER BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TH E RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. V. DCIT (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED TH E LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTED HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSU E AFRESH. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF CALLING FOR OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION AN D CUT SHORT THE PROCEDURES INVOLVED, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDERED. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE A ND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS R AISED BY BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFER ENT ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . )) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI 1 /DATED: 12 TH JUNE, 2015 VM/- + ).23 43&. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 4. - 5 /CIT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 5. 36 ). /DR 3. - 5 ( )/CIT(A) 6. % 7 /GF