U.P Stat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDC), Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

MA 30/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3306 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 3 0 /LKW/20 1 5 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 447 / LKW/201 2 ) A.YRS.: 200 5 0 6 M/S U. P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , A - 1/4, LAKHANPUR , KANPUR. PAN: AA ACU1759K VS. D CIT 6 , KANPUR. (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR , C.A. RESPONDENT BY SRI R. K. RAM , SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING 1 2 / 06 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /0 6 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATIONS IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 254 (2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 . 2 . IN THE M.A., IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLANA COLD STORAGE LTD. VS. ITO, 287 ITR 1. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, ONCE THE JUDICIAL REQUIREMENT TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE OBJ ECTION IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH (BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER), THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 GETS INVALIDATED AND NO FURTHER ACTION LIES FROM THAT STAGE. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE [ 2 ] MATTER RESTORED TO THE A .O. FOR PASSING ORDER ON OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IF SUCH OBJECTIONS ARE REJECTED THEN THE A.O. SHOULD REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THIS PART OF THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS AS RAISED IN THE M.A. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE SAME PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. 259 ITR 19 IS ALSO NOTED AND FOLLOWED AND AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE A.O. AND THE A.O. SHOULD PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS IN LINE WITH THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 8 /0 6 /201 5 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR