DCIT, Coimbatore V. T.M.Ramalingam, Dharapuram

MA 35/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4297 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' #, % &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NOS.34 & 35/MDS/2016 (IN S.P. NOS.4 & 5/MDS/2016 IN I.T.A. NOS.2302 & 2306/MDS/2015) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE. V. SHRI T.M. RAMALINGAM, NO.113, PALANI ROAD, GANAPATHIPALAYAM SOUTH, KOLINJIVADI POST, DHARAPURAM 636 673. PAN : ADOPR 7424 C (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 22.04.2016 45) 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.04.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 22.01.2016. 2 M.P. NOS.34 & 35/MDS/16 2. SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, BY AN ORDER DATED 22. 01.2016 IN S.P. NOS.4 & 5/MDS/2016, GRANTED STAY OF RECOVERY OF OUT STANDING AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING AM OUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2012-13 WAS COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MAD E ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE P ROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) SUBSEQ UENTLY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW REQUESTED FOR REFUND OF THE AM OUNT COLLECTED ON THE BASIS OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT NOTHING IS PENDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2012-13. IF THE REFUN D IS MADE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY PAY FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REVENUE. TO THAT EXTENT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE IS AN ERRO R IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD, INCLUDING 3 M.P. NOS.34 & 35/MDS/16 THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. AFTER GRANT OF STAY, T HE APPEALS THEMSELVES WERE DISPOSED OF BY AN ORDER DATED 13.04 .2016. WHEN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL FINALLY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN S.P. NOS.4 & 5/MDS/2016 ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE INTERIM ORDER WAS PASSED DURING PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS WERE FINALLY DISPOSED OF. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 22 ND APRIL, 2016. KRI. 4 M.P. NOS.34 & 35/MDS/16 0 +389 :9)3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 ;3 /CIT 5. 9< +3 /DR 6. =( > /GF.