DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 98/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9823514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SARFARAZUT TAUHEED
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY SHAH FC
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63; 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ......................APPELLANT CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LIMITED,....... ...............RESPONDENT 4, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AABCM 9443 R] & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL/ 2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LIMITED,....... ...............CROSS OBJECTOR 4, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AABCM 9443 R] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SARFARAZUT TAUHEED , JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SOUMEN ADAK, FCA AND SHRI VIJAY SHAH, FCA. , FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 06, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 09, 2015 I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 2 OF 9 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA DAT ED 20.09.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE SAME IS BEING D ISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEIN G C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED MAINLY IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF METALLUR GICAL MACHINERY, MATERIALS HANDLING AND CONVEYING PLANT AND COAL WAS HING PLANT ON A TURNKEY CONTRACT BASIS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 31.10.2002 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,66,13,297/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2005, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.8,79,63,595/- AFTER MAKING INTER ALIA TRADING ADDITION OF RS.5,09,37,980/- BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE BY APPLYING THE HIGHER RATE OF 4.87%. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, AN AP PEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGIN G THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO DISPUTING THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), VARIOUS DETAILS AND DO CUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING THE L ATERS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OFFERED HIS COMMENTS AND ALSO SUGGESTED FOR MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 3 OF 9 (1) UN-RECONCILED DIFFERENCE OF RS.27,25,000/- IN RESPE CT OF M/S. NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED; (2) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.61,08,189/- CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE T O M/S. TRICHY RAMESH PIPE INDUSTRY PVT. LIMITED; (3) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PAYMENTS OF RS.4,30,31,106/- INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE HIM INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COUNTER-COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREO N, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE ALSO DID NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE ADDITIONS SUGGESTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MAIN ISSUES WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.05.2006. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 15.05.2006, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. IN THE SAID APPEAL, THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 5, WHILE GROUNDS NO. 6 TO 9 INVOLVED THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS SUGGESTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.02.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1 498/KOL/2006, WHEREBY GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 5 WERE REJECTED BEING DEVO ID OF ANY MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ACCE PTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS REGARDS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 6 TO 9 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL RELATING TO THE I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 4 OF 9 ADDITIONS SUGGESTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND IT JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE SAID ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER PASSED AN ORDER ON 31.12.2009 GIVING EFF ECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.02.2008 (SUPRA). IN THE SAID ORDE R, HE MADE THE FOLLOWING THREE ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE:- (1) UN-RECONCILED DIFFERENCE OF RS.27,25,000/- IN RESPE CT OF M/S. NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED; (2) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.61,08,189/- CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE T O M/S. TRICHY RAMESH PIPE INDUSTRY PVT. LIMITED; (3) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PAYMENTS OF RS.4,30,31,106/- INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.12.2009 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AN APPEAL WAS AGAIN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN THE SAID A PPEAL, THE ASSESSEE RAISED A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND ALSO DISPUTED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, SECTION 153(3)(II) WAS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE SAID ORDER AND NOT SE CTION 153(2A) AS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 31.12.2009 WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE, HOWEVER, FOUND ME RIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID ORDER WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 5 OF 9 ACCORDINGLY DELETING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE SAID ADDITIONS, THE REVENUE HAS PREFER RED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CROSS OBJECTION RAISING THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE O RDER DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. SINCE THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE HA VE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THE SAID ISSUE FIRST AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE QUESTION, THAT IS RELEVANT IN THIS CONTEXT TO DECIDE THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE, IS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS GOV ERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)(II) OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND RE- ASSESSMENT IS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 153 AND THE PRO VISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2A) THEREOF READ WITH 2 ND PROVISO THERETO AND SUB-SECTION (3), WHICH ARE RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT, ARE EXTRACTED BELO W. SECTION 153(2A) : NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTIONS (1), (1A), (1B) AND (2) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1971, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PU RSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 2 63 OR SECTION 264, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSION ER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER : I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 6 OF 9 PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005,BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SEC TION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS ONE YEAR, T HE WORDS NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED. SECTION 153(3 ): THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (1), (1A), (1B) A ND (2) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF ASS ESSMENTS, REASSESSMENTS AND RE-COMPUTATIONS WHICH MAY, SUBJEC T TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2A), BE COMPLETED AT ANY TIME- (I)....... (II) WHERE THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUT ATION IS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER U NDER SECTION 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 OR 264[OR IN AN ORDER OF AN Y COURT IN A PROCEEDING OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REFER ENCE UNDER THIS ACT]; (III) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF A FIRM, AN ASSESSMENT I S MADE ON A PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN CONSEQUENCE OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE FIRM UNDER SECTION 147. 6. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTI ON 153 READ WITH 2 ND PROVISO THERETO AND SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 REVEALS THAT AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT, INTER ALIA, IN P URSUANCE OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254, SETTING A SIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT ANY TIME B EFORE THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN W HICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED CHIE F COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHEREAS SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATIO N IS TO BE MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED, INTER ALIA, IN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254, SAME CAN BE COMPLETED A T ANY TIME WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY TIME LIMIT SPECIFICALLY PRE SCRIBED FOR THE I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 7 OF 9 SAME. AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER AND FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HE ARING BEFORE US, THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED OF SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTIO N 153 IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN FRESH ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, INTER ALIA, IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AS A WHOLE. ACCORDING TO THEM, WHEN SEVERAL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SETS ASIDE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT S ITUATION WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO FRESH ASSESSMENT ATTRACTING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 153(2A) AND IN SUCH CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)( II) WOULD APPLY. 7. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ONE OF SUCH CASES DECIDED BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF POORAN SINGH VS.- ACIT [7 SOT 126], THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD NOT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETELY BUT ONLY TWO ISSUES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COULD DETERMINE T HE INCOME RELATING TO THOSE ISSUES AND THEREBY WORK OUT THE ASSESSED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE S AID CASE, WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS HE LD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) WOULD APPLY AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO TH E ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION 153(2A) WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. A SIMILAR ISSUE H AD AGAIN AROSE IN THE CASE OF STANDARD METERS MFG. CO. VS.- ADDL. CI T (ITA NO. 1665/PN/2007 DATED 29.11.2011) CITED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 8 OF 9 POINT OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 153(3) AND 153 (2A) IS THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) ARE TO OPERATE ON LY IN A SITUATION WHERE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT, OR RE-COMPUTATION I S NECESSARY TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED I N AN APPELLATE ORDER. IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS EARLIER ORD ER DATED 28.09.2003 HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION SO AS TO TRI GGER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT AND ONLY ONE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE SE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SAVED BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER S ECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POORAN SING H (SUPRA) AND STANDARD METERS MFG. CO. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLIC ABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.12.2009 GI VING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.02.2008 BEYOND THE P ERIOD OF NINE MONTHS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 153(2A) READ WITH SECO ND PROVISO THERETO FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED CHIEF COMMIS SIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS INVALID BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE WHILE DISPOSING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSEESSEE CANCELLING T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.12.2009 HOLDING THE SAME TO BE INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 & C.O. NO. 12/KOL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 98/KOL./2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 PAGE 9 OF 9 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SAID ORDER HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO DECIDE THE SA ME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 9 TH , 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LIMITE D, 4, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- I, KOLK ATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.