ACIT, CHENNAI V. R.Sagunthala Rangarajan, CHENNAI

MA 11/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0503 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 271(1)(c); 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , . . , ! ' [BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.P.NO S . 8 TO 12/MDS/2014 IN ./ I.T.A.NOS.1549 TO 1552 & 1554/MDS/2013 ! '# / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 TO 2006-07 & 2008-09 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III(3) CHENNAI VS. SMT. R.SAGUNTHALA RANGARAJAN OLD NO.24, NEW NO.38 ABM AVENUE, RA PURAM CHENNAI [PAN AOUPS 3497 P] ( PETITIONER ) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE $ '% & '() / DATE OF HEARING : 21-03-2014 *+#! & '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-03-2014 * / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE TO R ECALL THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2013 DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN VIEW OF B OARDS CIRCULAR NO.3 M.P.NOS.8 TO 12/14 :- 2 -: OF 2011 DATED 9.2.2011 BY PLEADING THAT THE SAME HA S BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED IN PRESENT SET OF CASES. 2. THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECAL LED BY SUBMITTING THAT WHILST DISMISSING THE APPEALS, THE BENCH HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULA R. SO, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CAS E FILES. RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN A NARROW COMPASS. THE REVENU E HAD FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETI NG PENALTIES U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO ` 27,427, ` 1,79,198/-, ` 17,487/-, ` 1,54,544/- AND ` 7002/-, RESPECTIVELY. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 , CONCERNED APPEAL INVOLVED PENALTY SUM OF ` 3,34,953/-. ON 20.9.2013, THE BENCH ADJOURNED THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE OTHER FIVE CASES KE EPING IN MIND CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD. IN THE PRESENT PETITIONS, T HE REVENUES THRUST IS ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE BENCH DID NOT CONSIDER THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS IN THE CIRCULAR READING AS FOLLOWS: M.P.NOS.8 TO 12/14 :- 3 -: 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFE CT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IT , IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPEC T OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPEC IFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS , HENCEFORTH, APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENC E TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPE CT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S), IF IT IS DECIDED TO FILE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER/JUDGMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT IS ARGUED BY THE REVEN UE THAT SINCE THE CIT(A)S ORDER WAS A COMPOSITE ONE AND THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION ON ISSUES INVOLVED, THE 'TRIBUNAL' COULD NOT HAVE DIS MISSED THE CASES MERELY ON THE GROUND OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 4. AFTER GIVING OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AR GUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE BOARDS CIRCUL AR HAD BEEN APPLIED WHILST DISMISSING THE APPEALS FOR LOW TAX EFFECT, THE BENCH DID NOT M.P.NOS.8 TO 12/14 :- 4 -: SPECIFICALLY ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS HIGH LIGHTED THEREIN AS THE SAME IS NOWHERE FORTHCOMING FROM THE ORDER SOUGHT T O BE RECALLED. IN OUR VIEW, THIS FORMS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FA CE OF RECORD WHICH DESERVES ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVENUES PLEA ABOVESAID . THUS, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 20.9.2013 IN ALL CASES. AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, THE APPEALS WOULD BE NOW HEARD ON THEI R ORIGINAL NUMBER. THE REGISTRY SHALL FIX THE APPEALS FOR HEA RING IN DUE COURSE BY INFORMING THE PARTIES. 5. THE REVENUE S MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS STAND ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 25 TH OF MARCH, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH MARCH, 2014 RD COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR