, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %% / M.P. NO.78/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NOS.2296 & 2298/MDS/2017) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD., 365, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AADCR 5418 B ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 22.06.2018 23' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.08.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.11.2017. 2 M.P. NO.78/CHNY/18 2. SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2014-15. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH IS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO REFERE NCE ABOUT THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACC ORDING TO THE LD. D.R., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, 28,61,80,000/- WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDER ED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE MATTER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO T HE LD. D.R., TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE APPEAL OF THI S TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE ADDITION WAS 28,61,80,000/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ADDITION WAS 44,35,99,125/-. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE ABOUT ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE TRIBUNAL MADE IT CLEAR THAT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR BOTH THE 3 M.P. NO.78/CHNY/18 ASSESSMENT YEARS, ADDITIONS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM THE HOLDI NG COMPANY M/S GJS HOTELS LIMITED. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD . D.R. AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AT PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE ORD ER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.11.2017. THIS TRIBUNAL, IN FACT, CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ADDITION WAS 28,61,80,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SIMILARLY, THE AD DITION WAS 44,35,99,125/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. SI NCE THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL CLARIFIES THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2014-15 WE RE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECON SIDERATION. 5. WITH THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 4 M.P. NO.78/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 10 TH AUGUST, 2018. KRI. . )16% 7%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. %9 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.