India Trimmings Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore V. DCIT, Coimbatore

MA 110/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5687 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! '#,% &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.110/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.476/MDS/2016) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S INDIA TRIMMINGS PVT. LTD., 6/636, PILLAIAPPAN PALAYAM, TELUNGUPALAYAM POST, ANNUR, COIMBATORE 641 653. PAN : AAACI 6394 N V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, 63-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 3 1 4% / DATE OF HEARING : 28.07.2017 5'* 1 4% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.01.2017. 2. SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF THE 2 M.P. NO..110/MDS/17 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IN THE RESULT, IT WAS REFERRED AS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE THE WORD STATISTICAL PURPOSES IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ORDE R, IT CREATES CONFUSION, THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE CLARIF IED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. D.R., THERE IS NO CONFUSION IN THE ORDER, THEREFORE, THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING MERIT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, PASSED THE ORDER WITH FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE DRP IS SET ASIDE. THE DR P SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEV ANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE COURSE OF ADJUDICATION, IT IS OPEN TO THE DRP TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY BY ITSELF OR CAL L FOR A RELEVANT REPORT EITHER FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R FROM THE TPO OR FROM ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AND THEREAFTER THE ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION HAS T O BE DECIDED BY THE DRP ITSELF. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVAT ION, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DRP. 3 M.P. NO..110/MDS/17 5. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IT IS OBV IOUS THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, INCLUDING THAT OF DRP, WERE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DRP WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY BY DRP ITSELF AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER. IN THE RESULT, IT WAS STATED TH AT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE I N THE JUDICIARY THAT WHEN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SE T ASIDE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THEIR FILE, THE RESULT WILL BE REFERRED AS ALLOWED. THE ITAT HAS NO FUNCTION OTHER THAN JUD ICIAL FUNCTION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN SAYING THAT TH E APPEAL WAS ALLOWED WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AFTER SETTING ASIDE THEIR ORDERS. MERE LY BECAUSE THE WORD STATISTICAL PURPOSES IS NOT REFERRED IN THE ORDER , IT DOES NOT CREATE ANY DOUBT EITHER IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OR IN THE MIND OF THE LITIGANT PUBLIC. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWE D. HOWEVER, THERE WAS FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE AUTHORITIES BELO W TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AS INDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO DOUBT WHICH NEEDS CLARIFICATION AS CLAIMED BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4 M.P. NO..110/MDS/17 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 28 TH JULY, 2017. KRI. 1 ,48( 9(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 :4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 :4 /CIT 5. (; ,4 /DR 6. ) < /GF.