Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6323 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
23-02-2018
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2000-2001
Appeal Filed On
27-03-2017
Judgement Text
1 ,' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- C,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH,JUDICIAL MEM BER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA168/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA/ 3610/MUM/2011, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI . VS. CITICORP FINANCE (I) LIMITED 5TH FLOOR, PLOT C-61, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, G-BLOCK, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 PAN:AABCC 4881 F APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: S/SHRI RAJAT MITTAL (DR) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.V. SONDE-AR / DATE OF HEARING 23.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.02.2018 /ORDER , - PER RAJENDRA AM: VIDE HIS APPLICATION DTD.31/03/2017,THE ASSESSING O FFICER(AO)HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HOLDIN G THAT IT WAS BARRED BY TIME LIMIT,THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN TIME,THAT THE MATTER NEEDED REC ONSIDERATION,THAT THE ABOVE ORDER SHOULD BE RECALLED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE MA.THE AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L,THAT HE WANTED RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER, THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR WAS FILED ON 29/11/2000,DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 21.64 CRORES,THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT, ON 31/01/2003, ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 26.91 CRORES,THAT MAT TER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL,THAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16/08/2007(ITA/5832/ MUM/2003),THE TRIB UNAL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 31/01/2003 ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTI FICATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S.254(2)BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL,THAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16/08/2007,THE APPLICATION WAS DISPOSED,THAT IN PUR SUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO 2 COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT,ON 02/12/ 2008,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 23.30 CRORES,THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA),WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT ON 17/02/2009,THE AO PASSED RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.15 4 OF THE ACT,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.46.07CRORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION,THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE RECTIFICATION ORDER BEFORE THE FAA,WHO HELD THAT TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INFRUCTUOUS, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL HELD AS UNDER: 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE ORDER,WE FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION. IT WAS N OT A CASE OF SIMPLE DIRECTION TO THE AO,WHEREIN HE HAD TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT ONLY.IT WAS A MATTER,W HERE THE AO HAD TO NOT ONLY DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN SECTIONS,BUT ALSO HAD TO D ECIDE THE NATURE OF THE SECTIONS.WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF TH E AO AND IT READS AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE AS TO W HETHER THE SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SUBSECTION 14A OF THE ACT WERE RETROACTIVE IN OPERA TION.THUS,IT WAS A CASE OF FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE,IN OUR OPINION,THE FAA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)(III) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER CONSI DERATION. REVERSING HIS ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS NOT VALID AND WAS BARRED BY TIME-LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION WITH 153(2A) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO RELIED UPON THE CASE OF INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROL CO. (349 ITR 571) OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT TO DECIDE TH E ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF TIME LIMIT.IN OUR OPINION,THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE SECTION 15 3(2A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 3(3)(III) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL.HENCE WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT MA FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD , FEBRUARY 2018. 23 , 2018 SD/- SD/- ( /JOGINDER SINGH) ( /RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 23 .02.2018. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 3 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.
Mehul