Dalmer India Commercial Vehicles (P) Ltd., Kancheepuram V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 202/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4790 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' / M.P. NO.202/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NO.563/CHNY/2017) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S DAIMLER INDIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (P.) LTD., SIPCOR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH, ORAGADAM, MATHUR POST, KANCHEEPURAM 602 105. PAN : AABCF 1590 N V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : NONE +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2019 45) 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T 'THE ACT'). 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGEMENT AS 2 M.P. NO.202/CHNY/18 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. INSPITE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT WHEN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE H EARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOS E THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON MERIT. 3. WE HEARD THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THE MAIN GRI EVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS OF 19,25,26,321/-. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BUSINESS WAS NOT SET UP IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT APPEARS FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.05.2018 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN T.C.A. NO.958 OF 2018 AND THE HIGH COURT ALSO ADMIT TED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FRAMED A QUESTION OF LAW TO BE ADJUDICATED. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH C OURT AND THE SAME IS ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT, CAN THE ASSESSE E PROSECUTE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WHICH ALSO ARISE S ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS WHEN COMES FOR ADJUDICATION? THE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN W.A.NO.288 OF 2011 FOUND THAT THE LITIGANT CANNO T PURSUE PARALLEL REMEDIES BEFORE TWO FORUMS. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THE 3 M.P. NO.202/CHNY/18 ASSESSEE FILED REVIEW APPLICATION PRAYING FOR REVIE W OF THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT AND PARALLELY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILE D A PETITION BEFORE THE APEX COURT. IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE LITIGANT CANNOT PURSUE PA RALLEL REMEDIES. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PURSUE PARALLEL REMEDY ONE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND ANOTHER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH AUGUST, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( ... ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANES AN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 8 TH AUGUST, 2019. KRI. 0 +38' 9')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 :3 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 :3 /CIT 5. '; +3 /DR 6. <( = /GF.