M/s.Seapearl Industries, Alappuzha V. ACIT, Ernakulam

MA 115/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1243 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNA IYER
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

1 MP NO.115/COCH/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) M.P.NO.115/COCH/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 206/COCH/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) SEA PEARL INDUSTRIES VS A.C.I.T., CIR.1(1) CHANDIROOR RNGE-1, ERNAKULAM ALAPPUZHA DIST PAN : AAOFS1490E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R KRISHNA IYER RESPONDENT BY : SMT. LATHA V KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-12-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24-05-2013. 2. SHRI R KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 24-05-2013 FOU ND THAT THE REASON FOR THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT FURNISHED T O THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAF TS (INDIA) LTD VS ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL MODIFIED THE ORDER OF 2 MP NO.115/COCH/2013 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER BY DIRECTING THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY A SPEAKING ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE INDEPENDE NTLY WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINIST RATIVE COMMISSIONER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THE OPERATIVE P ORTION, THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMIS SED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE L D.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWE D PARTLY SINCE THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER WAS MODIFI ED. WE HEARD SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR ALSO. 3. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRA TIVE COMMISSIONER TO PROCEED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT C ORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DIS POSE OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY A SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREAFTER, IF NECESSARY, TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSES SMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONS IDER THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHO UT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATI VE COMMISSIONER IN 3 MP NO.115/COCH/2013 THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RESULT OF THE ORDER IN THE OPERATIVE PORTI ON OF THE ORDER SHALL BE PARTLY ALLOWED AND NOT DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN NOT IMPL EMENTING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE TRIBUNAL SPECIFICALLY DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BY A SPEAKING ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BY A SPE AKING ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24- 05-2013 IS RECTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 7, LINE 3, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DELETED: DISMISSED INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: PARTLY ALLOWED 5. NOW, AFTER RECTIFICATION, THE THIRD AND FOURTH L INE ON PAGE 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 4 MP NO.115/COCH/2013 HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED WITH ABOVE MODIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 06 TH DECEMBER, 2013 PK/- COPY TO: 1. SEAL PEARL INDUSTRIES, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA DIS T 2. ACIT, CIR.1(1), RANGE-1, ERNAKULAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BLDG, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18 4. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH