The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. Bounce Investments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 199/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5304 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

MA NO.199/AHD/2018 ITO VS. BOUNCE INVESTMENT PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM] M.A. NO. 199/AHD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 43/AHD/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ..................AP PLICANT WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. BOUNCE INVESTMENT PVT LTD ..... .......................RESPONDENT 9 TH FLOOR, B D PATEL HOUSE, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD-380 013 [PAN : AABCB 6855 E] APPEARANCES BY: SK DEV, FOR THE APPLICANT GC PIPARA, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 18.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 28.01.2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. BY WAY OF THIS RECTIFICATION PETITION, THE APPLI CANT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT AN ALLEGED MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD IN THE ORDER DATED 14 TH FEBRUARY 2018 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE MISTAKE IS THAT WHILE THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR ADJUDICATION ON THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE REOPENING THE FILE DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPLICANT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERY WELL CONSIDERED THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS B EEN OVERLOOKED BY THE ITAT. 2. WHEN THIS PETITION CAME UP FOR HEARING, SHRI DEV , LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CL EARLY IN ERROR IN OBSERVING THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE NOT DISPOSED OF. HE INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH NO. 2.2, FROM PAGE NOS. 8 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHRI DEV POINTED OUT THAT, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED AND OBSERVED THAT THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND ARE DEALT WITH HEREUNDER AND THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO DEAL WITH ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IT WAS AN I NADVERTENT ERROR ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T, IN THESE DISCUSSIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS ONLY JUSTIFIED AS TO WHY THESE OBJECTIONS NEED NOT BE DISPOSED OF ON MERITS AND THERE IS NO ADJUDICATION ON THE OBJECTIONS PER SE. LEARNED MA NO.199/AHD/2018 ITO VS. BOUNCE INVESTMENT PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 2 COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RE IS CLEARLY NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS REMITTED THE FILE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION ON THE OBJECTIONS ON MERITS. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US, WE SEE NO LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS IN THE PLE A OF THE APPLICANT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION INASMUCH AS THE AS SESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DECIDE THE APPLICANTS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REOPENING BE FORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JU DGMENT IN THE CASE OF MGM EXPORTS VS. DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 331 (GUJ), THE ISSU E IS TO BE REMITTED BACK FOR NECESSARY COMPLIANCE AS PER HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFT INDIA LTD VS. ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC). WHA T HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT RECTIFICATION PETI TION IS ADJUDICATION ON THE PLEA AS TO WHETHER THE OBJECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISPOSED OF OR NOT, BUT THAT PART IS NO LONGER IN DISPUTE. THE LAW IS SETTLED FOR SUCH OBJ ECTIONS TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF ON MERITS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS PER SE AND THAT IS WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ASKED HIM TO DO NOW. WE SEE NO ERROR, MUCH LESS AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD , IN THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THE PLEA OF THE AP PLICANT AND DECLINE TO REVISIT OUR DECISION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 28 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- MS. MADHUMITA ROY PRA MOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, THE 28 TH JANUARY, 2019 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDE NT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ......18.01.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 18.01.2019........ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 28.01.2019... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.01.2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : ... 28.01.2019... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......