A.Natarajan, Salem V. ITO, Salem

MA 215/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4762 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B NAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 215/MDS/2015 (IN ITA NO. 780/MDS/2014) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 A. NATARAJAN, 125/3, SANKAGIRI MAIN ROAD, GHANAPADMA AVENUE, NETHIMEDU, SALEM 636 002. PAN AESPN1974Q (APPLICANT) V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), SALEM-636002. (R ESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2016 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEE KS CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA N O. 780/MDS/2014 DATED 26.06.2015. - - MA 215/15 2 2. THE LD. AR, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 780 & 781/MDS/2014 AND 258 & 259/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, OBSERVED IN PARA 5 AS FO LLOWS : 5. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ONLY FOR LIM ITED PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME FROM FINANCING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX HAS NOT SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FOR DOI NG AFRESH THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE THEREON. T HUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS IS NOT CORRECT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. ACCORDING TO THIS, THE LD. AR, SUBMITTED THAT IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL GIVES EXTENDED PERIOD TO PAS S CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S.263 DATED 18.3.2009. HENCE, HE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION FROM THI S TRIBUNAL THAT WHETHER THE AO SHALL INFLUENCE BY THE ABOVE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OB JECTION. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5 CITED SUPRA IS ONLY CONFINED TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. - - MA 215/15 3 780/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DIRECTION TO THE AO TO PASS ANY ORDER WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S.263 DA TED 18.3.2009. FURTHER, THE AO SHALL NOT FLUENCE BY TH E FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5 ABOVE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, WE DISP OSE OF M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 11 TH OF AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) (CHANDRA POOJARI) 011 231 /JUDICIAL MEMBER 45 231/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 50 /CHENNAI, =2 /DATED, THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016. MPO* >25? @A4B CD5B /COPY TO: 1. C4EF /APPELLANT 2. @G1EF /RESPONDENT 3. >1 >1 H (C4) /CIT(A) 4. >1 >1 H /CIT 5. BIJ1 @K /DR 6. JL M4 /GF.