New Era Shipping Ltd., Vasco V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao., Margao

MA 39/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3699 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 39/PNJ/2015 ( ITA NO. 152 /PNJ/2009 & CO NO.42/PNJ/2014 ) (ASST. YEAR : 200 4 - 0 5 ) NEW ERA SHIPPING LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, DR. MUKUND BUILDING, F.L. GOMES ROAD, VASCO - DA - GAMA. VS. AC IT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO . PAN NO. AABCN 7724 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 / 1 1 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 / 1 1 /201 5 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 152/PNJ/2009 AND C.O. NO. 42/PNJ/2014 DATED 09/06/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 2. SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJU DI CATION , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ORIGINALLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2 MA NO. 39 /PNJ/201 5 19/07/2011 HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER AND DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE TRIBUNAL WAS BOUND TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ( 340 ITR 66 ) WAS REFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER, BUT NO DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS RENDERED . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) , IF THE REASONS RECORDED HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TILL COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT , RE - ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO , CLEARLY THE REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ONLY WHEN THE APPEAL WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) , THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO THE QUASHED. 4 . IN REPLY , LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR WHICH CALLED FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. 5. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE REASONS RECORDED, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED, BUT COPY OF THE LETTER WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 7 . A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE 3 MA NO. 39 /PNJ/201 5 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKING FOR THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING AND THE SAME WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CAS E, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL OR IN THE MA TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR THE REASONS RECORDED. IT IS , IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT APPLY AND THE ISSUES WERE RESORTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. IN ANY CASE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CALLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. 8 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 1 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 9 TH NOVEMBER , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 4 MA NO. 39 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 9 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER