Susee Cars (P) Ltd., Vellore V. Addl.CIT, Madurai

MA 121/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4435 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PALJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NOS.121,122 &123/MDS./2016 (I.T.A.NO.994,995 & 996/MDS./2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S.SUSEE CARS(P) LTD., , NO.271, CHITTOR HIGH ROAD, VELLORE 632 007. VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, MADURAI. PAN AAHCS 4953 N ( () / APPELLANT ) ( *+() / RESPONDENT ) M.P.NOS.124,125 &126/MDS./2016 (I.T.A.NO.997,998 & 999/MDS./2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S.SUSEE TRUCKS (P) LTD. , NO.6,5 TH EAST CROSS ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, VELLORE 6. VS . ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, MADURAI. PAN AAJCS 2331 L ( () / APPELLANT ) ( *+() / RESPONDENT ) MA NOS.121 TO 133/MDS./16 :- 2 -: M.P.NOS.127, 128,129,130,131,132 & 133/MDS./2016 (I.T.A.NO.1000,1001,1002,1003,1004,1005 & 1006/MDS. /2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S.SUSEE MOTORS , NO.271,(OLD NO.98/1), CHITTOR HIGH ROAD, VELLORE 632 007. VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, MADURAI. PAN AAPFS 9764 E ( () / APPELLANT ) ( *+() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.VASUDEVAN,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.SUPRIYO PAL,JCIT,D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 07 - 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 07 - 2016 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE EARLIER O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.994 TO 1006/MDS./2014 DATED 24. 03.2016 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE FRAMING OF ASS ESSMENT U/S.153C OF THE ACT THAT THERE WAS NO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED NATURE OF INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL REMITTE D THE ISSUE IN MA NOS.121 TO 133/MDS./16 :- 3 -: DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO EXAMINE WITH RE FERENCE TO THE RECORDS OF THE AO IN ALL THESE CASES. ACCORDING TO LD.A.R, THE TRIBUNAL MUST HAVE ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND REGARDIN G VALIDITY OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE AO, INSTEAD IT WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHIC H IS NOT APPROPRIATE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL IS HAVING INHERENT POWERS TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS, THOUGH I T WAS RAISED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE JUDGE MENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383(SC). AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., R EPORTED IN [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), NON CONSIDERATION OF DECIS ION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT CAN BE S AID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THUS, HE SUB MITTED THAT ORDER OF TRIBUNAL TO BE RECTIFIED ON THIS COUNT. L D.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT RECORD ING OF SATISFACTION BY THE OFFICER AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED N ATURE OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH WAS PARA MOUNT MA NOS.121 TO 133/MDS./16 :- 4 -: AND THERE BEING NO SUCH RECORDING, THE ASSESSMENT F RAMED U/S. 153C STANDS VITIATED AND NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED . THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THIS GROUND AND OBSERVED TH AT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC GROUND BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) SO AS TO ADJUD ICATE BY CIT(A). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND F IRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER ADMITTING THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL OPINED THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF LD.CIT(A) INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS ITSELF AS IT WA S REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECORDS OF THE AO IN ALL THESE RECORDS OF CASES. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CIT(A) HAS TO ADJUDICATE THESE CASES IN VIEW OF THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA KNITW EARS AND BOARD CIRCULARS REFERRED THAT TOO. NOW THE LD.A.R FINDING FAULT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE L D.A.R IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL MUST HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON MERIT INSTEAD REMITTING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A ). 4. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSCI OUS DECISION THAT THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.A.R CANNOT DICTATE THE TRIBU NAL TO TAKE THE DECISION IN THE MANNER, HE WANTED TO. IT IS THE JU DICIAL DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED W ITH IT, HE HAS MA NOS.121 TO 133/MDS./16 :- 5 -: REMEDY ELSEWHERE AND NOT BY WAY OF MISCELLANEOUS PE TITIONS U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. THIS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE TRIBUNALS TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER IN TH E CASE OF RECTIFICATION. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO MERIT I N THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.A.R. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH JULY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - . ! '# $ ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& / CHENNAI '() /DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2016 K S SUNDARAM (*++,-.+/. / COPY TO: + 1 . / APPELLANT 3. + 0+$ / CIT(A) 5. .12+,,3 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + 0 / CIT 6. 2#4+5 / GF