DCIT, CHENNAI V. Jain Granites & Projects India Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 132/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1461 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , $ !% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.132/CHNY/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.2280/MDS/2013) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI. V. M/S JAIN GRANITES & PROJECTS INDIA LTD., 89, HARRINGTON ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 030. PAN : AAACJ 1767 E (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2018 3'( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 07.11.2016. 2. SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE ON 2 M.P. NO.132/CHNY/17 THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING AMOUNT W AS DOUBTFUL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE OUTSTANDING AM OUNT. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN UCO BANK V. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 IS NOT APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESS EE IS NOT A BANK, IT IS ONLY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERV ICE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE PETITION ON MERIT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS NOT DISPUTE D THAT THE OUTSTANDING PAYMENT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.1999. THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED INTEREST ON INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT OR ADV ANCES MADE TO OTHER COMPANIES. HENCE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE JUDG MENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD. (330 ITR 440) WOULD BE APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, THE ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. IS NOT AN ERROR PRIMA FACIE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD. THE ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF TH E TRIBUNALS 3 M.P. NO.132/CHNY/17 ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY MER IT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KRI. / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.