Twentyfirst Century Management Services Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

MA 100/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6543 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R VISWANATHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) .. M.P. NO. 100/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1974/MDS/2006) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S.TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD., NO.158, ELDAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 018. PAN : AAACT 2397 L (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD), COMPANY CIRCLE III(1), CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI V.S.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.VISW ANATHAN O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE EFFECTIVE PRAYERS MADE, APPEARING IN PARA 8 TO 10 THEREOF ARE GIVEN H EREUNDER:- 8. IN THE PRESENT PETITION U/S.254(2), THE APPELLA NT SEEKS THE INDULGENCE OF THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT TO GIVE SUITABLE DIRECTI ONS TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT THE ENHANCED CLOSING STOCK VAL UATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE OPENING STOCK OF THE NEXT ASSESS MENT YEAR NAMELY A.Y. -2004-05. M.P. NO. 100/MDS/11 2 9. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUP REME COURT IN MAHINDRA MILLS LTD. VS. P.B.DESAI, APPELLATE ASST.C IT (1975) 99 ITR 135(SC) FOR THE SAID PROPOSITION. IF SUCH DIRECTION IS GIVEN THEN ONLY THE PROPER REAL INCOME CAN BE TAXED IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EARS CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDIN GS. 10. THE APPELLANT IS FILING THIS PETITION U/S.254( 2) AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT CAUTION TO SEEK THE DIRECTION FROM THIS H ONBLE TRIBUNAL BASED ON THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE ENTIRE PRO CEEDINGS THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED FORMS PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THE OPENING STOCKOF THE NEXT YEAR MAY BE S UITABLY BE DIRECTED TO BE MODIFIED. 2. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, AS SESSEE IS SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM THIS TRIBUNAL, FOR AN ASSE SSMENT YEAR DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE AP PEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SUBMISSION BEFORE US IS THAT POWER OF THIS TRIB UNAL ARE WIDE ENOUGH TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS, AS IT DEEMS FIT, IN A APPEAL BEFORE IT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED THE DECISIONS OF V.K.J.BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX 318 ITR 204 (SC)., MAHINDRA MILLA LTD. VS. P.B. DESAI APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 99 ITR 135 (S C) AND ITO VS. M.K. MOHAMMED KUNHI 71 ITR 815(SC) . PER CONTRA LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL. M.P. NO. 100/MDS/11 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ADDITION ASSAILED WAS THE ADDITION FOR CL OSING STOCK. SUCH APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS A DIR ECTION FROM THE TRIBUNAL THAT OPENING STOCK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE ENHANCED VALUE AFTER THE SUSTAINED ADD ITION. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT OPENING STOCK OF ANY YEAR WILL BE THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE EARLIER YEAR. THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF SUCH A DIRECTION FROM TRIBUNAL AT ALL. IF AT ALL THIS NOT DONE BY THE AS SESSING AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE HAS MANY A LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM . IN FACT THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN V.K.J.BUILDERS A ND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) CITED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL SUPPORT ITS APPLICATION FILED IN THIS REGARD UNDER SECTION 154, IF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE PRINCIPLE MENTIONED ABOVE. REMEDY OF THE ASSESSEE M.P. NO. 100/MDS/11 4 LIE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE IT IS DENIED THE E NHANCED VALUE OF OPENING STOCK AND NOT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR. 5. OF COURSE, THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS VERY W IDE AS RULED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IN M.K.MOHAMMED KUNHIS CASE (SUPRA ). BUT THIS CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO MEAN THAT IT CAN GIVE DIRECTI ONS FOR A YEAR DIFFERENT THAN ONE IN APPEAL BEFORE IT. EVERY POWE R HOWEVER, EXTENSIVE HAS GOT ITS LIMITATION AND IN AN APPEAL, BEFORE IT, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT TRANSGRESS, THE BOUNDARIES LAID DO WN BY THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT. TRIBUNAL HAD ANSWERED THE ISSUE CORRECTLY AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE ON THE FACE OF IT, MUCH LESS ANY MISTAKE, WHICH IS GLARING AND OBVIOUS WARRANTING INVOCATION OF SEC TION 254(2). M.P. NO. 100/MDS/11 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH JUNE , 2011. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE M.P. NO. 100/MDS/11 6 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 24.06.11 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 27.06.11 SR. PS /PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER : 27.06.11 ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _____ ____ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 27.06.11 ______ SR . PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _____ ____ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______