ACIT, Cuddalore V. Shri Alagappa Annamalai, Chidambaram

MA 206/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5375 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! ,% !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' / M.P. NO.206/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.1522/MDS/2015) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE. V. SHRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI, NO.66/22-A-2, THERADI PILLAIYAR KOIL STREET, CHIDAMBARAM. PAN : AAHPA 5460 F (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR , ADDL. CIT +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2017 4') 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 / 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 THE APPEAL WAS FILED DUE TO AUDIT O BJECTION. 2. SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DISMIS SED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOL VED IN THE APPEAL 2 M.P. NO.206/MDS/16 IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE TAX EFFEC T INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ` 8,97,599/-. HOWEVER, BY CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015, THE CBDT INCREASED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FIL ING OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FROM ` 4 LAKHS TO ` 10 LAKHS. UNDER PARA 8(C) OF CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015, INSPITE OF MONETARY LIMIT, APPEAL CAN BE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREVER THERE WAS AUDIT OBJEC TION. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS AN AUDIT OBJECTION, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS FILED BEFORE THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIT) TO GET APPROVAL FOR FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND WHETHER SUCH REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THE COMMISSIONERS ORDER? THE LD. D.R. VERY FAIRLY SUB MITTED THAT SUCH A REFERENCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER OF THE C IT WHO APPROVED THE PROPOSAL FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE WAS FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE AUD IT OBJECTION. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE AU DIT OBJECTION, THE APPEAL WAS FILED. WHEN THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COMMISSIONER WHILE GRANTING APPROVAL FOR FILING OF 3 M.P. NO.206/MDS/16 APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED ONLY BECAUSE OF A UDIT OBJECTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS PER THE DIRECTION OF CIT, PUDUCHERRY. THE CIT, PUDUCHERRY HAS GIVEN THE CERTIFICATE FOR F ILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 15 OF A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 15 OF THE APPELLATE RULE RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE IS DIRECTED TO FILE AN APPEAL TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.491/PDY/13-14/ DATED 11.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IN THE CASE OF SHRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI, CHIDAMBARAM RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 24.03.2015. 5. FROM THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE IT APPEARS THAT THE S O-CALLED AUDIT OBJECTION WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED INDEPENDENTL Y WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO AUDIT OBJECTION. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED ONLY BECAUSE OF AUDIT OBJECTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS 4 M.P. NO.206/MDS/16 TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETI TION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. 0 +37' 8')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 93 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 93 /CIT 5. ': +3 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.