ITO, CHENNAI V. M/s. Gitsons Engineering Co., CHENNAI

MA 3/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7725 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P.NO.03/MDS./12 (IN ITA NO.796/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III (4), CHENNAI -34. VS. M/S.GITSONS ENGINEERING CO., 60, DEVELOPED PLOTS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI 600 096. PAN AAAFG 5613 K (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.S.JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16. 03.12 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.796/MD S./2010 DATED 22 ND JULY, 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNCIL REPRESENT ED ON MP NO..03 /MDS/12 M/S.GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. 2 BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVO CATE, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERED FROM A MISTAKE INSOFAR AS IT HAS HELD THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2) DATED 17.09.08 WAS NOT SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SERVICE AND I SSUE WAS INTERCHANGEABLE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON THE NOTICE DT.17.09.08, IT HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY NOTED AS DISP ATCHED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION S OF SEC.292 BB AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT NOW CLAIM THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, LD. AR VEHEM ENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUB MISSION THAT WHAT WAS BEING ATTEMPTED WAS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. PERU SAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AS SESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007-08. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT ICED THAT THERE IS A NOTING DPD DT.18.09.08 IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2) DATED 17.09.08. AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER, THE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET RECORDING HAS BEEN AGAIN PERUSED AND TH ERE IS NO NOTING IN THE ORDER SHEET OF HAVING DISPATCHED THIS NOTICE MP NO..03 /MDS/12 M/S.GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. 3 U/S.143(2) DATED 17.09.08. FURTHER, THE DECISION O F HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KUBE R TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 120 TTJ (DEL.) (SB) 577 CLEARLY HOLDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292 BB ARE APPLICA BLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IS NOT RETROSPECTIV E IN NATURE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE RECENT DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.292 BB AR E APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US IS ONLY 2007-08, WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECI SION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO.796/MDS./2010 DATED 22.07.2011, WHICH CALLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( N.S.SAINI ) (GEORGE MATHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH MARCH, 2012. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE MP NO..03 /MDS/12 M/S.GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. 4