Srinivasa Machine Works, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 56/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4351 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय ी मनोज कु मार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.P No.55/Chny/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.1969/Chny/2016) (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & M.P No. 56/Chny/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.3434/Chny/2016) ( िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & M.P No. 57/Chny/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 844/Chny/2017) (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/s. Srinivasa Machine Works No.1A, Regency Apartments, No.5, 1 st Lane, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. बनाम/ V s. ITO Non-Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai. थायी लेखा सं. /जीआइ आर सं. /P A N/ G I R No . AAQ F S - 2 1 6 6 - M (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld. AR थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 13.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 M.P Nos. 55 to 57/Chny/2020 2 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of these Miscellaneous Petitions, the assessee seeks rectification in Tribunal order passed on 09.10.2019 in the captioned appeals. The Tribunal has partly allowed assessee’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 but dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14. One of the common ground, in all the years, was addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).The bench after considering the applicable factual matrix and taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Travel Services V/s CIT (89 Taxmann.com 332), in para-3 held that the case laws relied on by Ld. AR could not be applied and the case squarely falls within the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) read with Explanation 3. Accordingly, the assessee’s grounds were rejected for all the three years. 2. Drawing our attention to the petition, Ld. AR submitted that a mere reference made to a larger bench in the cited case would not render the decision in CIT V/s Ankitech P. Ltd. & Ors. (340 ITR 14) in-applicable as held by the bench in para-3 of the order. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the issue was debatable one and the arguments of Ld. AR do not make out a case of rectification in terms of Sec.254(2) of the Act. 3. After due consideration, we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the issue is debatable one and the bench, in its wisdom, held that the case laws cited by Ld. AR was not applicable to the facts of the case. This was the view of the bench and based on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Travel Services V/s CIT (89 Taxmann.com 332). Therefore, the arguments of Ld. AR do not M.P Nos. 55 to 57/Chny/2020 3 convince us to make any interference in the order in terms of Sec.254(2) of the Act. We do not find any mistake which is apparent on the face of the order. 4. All the miscellaneous Petitions stands dismissed in terms of above order. Order pronounced in open court on 13 th May, 2022. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा ! /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे+ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 13-05-2022 JPV JPVJPV JPV आदेशकीTितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF