Ramani Investments, Salem V. DCIT, Salem

ITA 81/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6356 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.81/MDS/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S RAMANI INVESTMENTS, 3/340, RAJAJI ROAD, SALEM 636 007. PAN : AADFR 3031 R V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, SALEM. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2017 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DA TED 9.12.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. NO.81/MDS/17 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION MADE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIB UNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AND THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 17.07.2015 REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO BRING ON RECORD WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S RAMANI AUTO MOTIVE PVT. LTD. WAS MADE BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OR BY THE PAR TNERS IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THEREAFTER DECIDE IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES (2012) 347 ITR 305. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUB MITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO REMIT T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION ALSO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECT ED TO CONSIDER 3 I.T.A. NO.81/MDS/17 THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT ON THIS ISSUE IN GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) V. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.12274 OF 2016 DATED 04.01.2017 IN ADDITION TO JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH CO URT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND T HAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE 'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BAC K THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AND BRING ON RECORD WHETHER THE INVESTMENT I N SHARES OF M/S RAMANI AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. WAS MADE BY THE PARTNER SHIP FIRM OR BY THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPA CITY AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES (SUPRA). 6. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE, NOW THERE IS A JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE MATTER I S REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE IN THE LIGHT OF LATEST JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN GOPAL AND SONS (HUF) (SUP RA). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE 4 I.T.A. NO.81/MDS/17 ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AND B RING ON RECORD WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S RAMANI AUTO MOTIVE PVT. LTD. WAS MADE BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OR BY THE PAR TNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HI GH COURT IN NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT O F APEX COURT IN GOPAL & SONS (HUF) (SUPRA). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD AUGUST, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 23 RD AUGUST, 2017. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, SALEM 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.