ACIT, CHENNAI V. T.R.Pachamuthu, CHENNAI

MA 81/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3182 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: B S PURSHOTHAMC A
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NOS.81 & 82/MDS./2014 ./ I.T.A.NOS.1674 & 1673/MDS./2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2003-04 & 2002-03) HE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU, NO.4 & 5 PRAKASAM STREET, JANAKI NAGAR, VALASARAWAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 087. PAN AHMPP 3160 B ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.V.SREEKANTH,JCIT D.R / RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.S.PURSHOTHAM,C.A / DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ITA NOS.1674 & 1673/MDS./2007 DATED 30.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 2 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE IN BOTH THE MISCELLAN EOUS PETITIONS THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL, THEY ARE ADJUDICATED BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 2. THE IDENTICAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS IS REPR ODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:- 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEALS BEFORE THIS HON BLE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06(4 YEARS) VIDE I TA NOS.1673, 1674, 1683 AND 1675 IN THE CASE OF SRI T.R.PACHAMUT HU,CHAIRMAN OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AP PEALS FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ITA NOS.1509 TO 1512/MDS./2007. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL T HROUGH A COMMON ORDER ON 30.03.2010. 2. SIMILARLY, THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS AGAINS T M/S. VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY IN ITA NOS.1557, 1558 & 1559/MDS./2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02 AND THESE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE HONBLE ITAT ON 11.01.2011. 3. COMING TO THE FACTS, A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU, CHAIR MAN OF THE SOCIETY ON 12.08.2004 WHEREUPON INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WER E SEIZED. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W. 153A OF THE I.T.ACT BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2006. IN THE CASE OF M/S. VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY ALSO, ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W. 153C BY ORDER DATED 29.09.2006. MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 3 4. A READING OF BOTH THE ORDERS OF HONBLE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF THE CHAIRMAN SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU AND M/S. VALLIAMMAL SO CIETY SHOWS THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH HA S CAUSED SUBSTANTIAL LOSS TO REVENUE AND HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT JUSTICE MAY BE RENDERED BY RECALLING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI T.R.PACHAMU THU FOR A.Y 2003-04. 5. THE HONBLE ITAT C BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE R EVENUES APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. V ALLIAMMAL SOCIETY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 IN THE OR DER DATED 11.01.2011 HELD AS FOLLOWS(PARA 8 IN PAGE NO.10): 8. TRUE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE HANDS OF SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU. IT IS NOT THE CLAIM OF SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU THAT THESE ARE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. ANY SEIZED MATERIAL THAT IS FOUND IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PACHAMUTHU IS FOR SHRI PACHAMUTHU TO EXPLAIN I N VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292-C OF THE ACT. JUST B ECAUSE SHRI PACHAMUTHU HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF VA RIOUS DOCUMENTS CANNOT LEAD TO A BLIND PRESUMPTION THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHICH IS ENJOYING THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(23)(VI) AND WHOSE INCOME IS EXCLUDED IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISION, IS THE TRUE OWNER OF SUCH INCOME OR AMOUNTS. ONE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY I S A SEPARATE JURIDICAL PERSON HAVING INDEPENDENT EXISTE NCE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL, SHRI PACHAMUTHU. IN SHORT, IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO TREAT THE POSSIBLE TAXABLE INCOME OF AN INDIVIDU AL AS AN EXEMPTED INCOME OF AN APPROVED SOCIETY WITHOUT COGE NT REASONS. MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 4 5.1. HENCE, THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME WAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE IN DIVIDUAL I.E SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU CHAIRMAN. 6. CONTRARY TO THIS FINDING, IT IS HELD BY THE A BENCH OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUA L SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU IN ITA NOS.1673 & 1674/MDS/2007 FOR A.Y 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS. IN SO FAR AS PROMOTES WERE SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY IS A DIFFERENT E NTITY ALTOGETHER. ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE CHAIRMAN OF SUCH SOCIE TY BUT NEVERTHESLESS ONCE HE HAD ISUSED PROMOTES IN HIS CA PCITY AS CHAIRMAN OF SOCIETY, THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED EVEN IF NOT PROV ED COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HIS INCOME. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITIO N THAT WHAT WERE SEIZED WERE ONLY PHOTOCOPIES OF PROMOTES. IN THE C ASE OF SMT.P.EASWARI, TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 22.5.200 9 (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEI ZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ONLY PHOTOCOPIES WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIE S WITH THE SOCIETY ITSELF. NO DOUBT, HERE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSI DERED AS THE DEBTOR WHO HAD OBTAINED THE CREDITS WHEREAS THERE THE ASSE SSEE WAS ASSESSED AS A CREDITOR HAVING NOT EXPLAINED SOURCE. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE FACT SITUATION REMAINS THE SAME THAT THE ADDIT IONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPIES OF PROMOTES WHICH WERE SIG NED BY ASSESSEE AS CHAIRMAN OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING THE LD. CIT (A) THT SUCH A N AMOUNT OF CREDITS, EVEN IF NOT PROVED, COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIET Y . MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 5 VIDE GROUND NO.4 REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED IN THE D ELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROMISS ORY NOTES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHERE SUCH PROMOTES WERE SIGN ED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN,VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY. PARA NO.57:- WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND VIDE PARA 22 WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING SUCH ADDI TION. FOLLOWING THIS, WE REFUSE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T (A) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUE, T HEREFORE, STANDS DISMISSED. 7. THUS, THE ADDITIONS HAVE GOT DELETED BOTH IN T HE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL (CHAIRMAN) AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF TH E SOCIETY. TO THE EXTENT, IT IS HELD IN THE ORDERS OF APPEALS AGAINST THE SOCIETY THAT INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE AS HE IS A SEPARATE JURID ICAL PERSON AND THEN SECTION 292C APPLIES WITH REGARD TO THE INCRIMINATI NG MATERIALS SEIZED, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO IMPLEMENT THIS ORDER AND RECAL L THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU AND RENDER JUSTICE. TH OUGH THE ORDERS OF HONBLE ITAT RELATE TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, YET THE FINDINGS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOCK PERIOD AND IN THE CASE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE SOCIETY, THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON. HENCE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT JUSTICE MAY BE RENDERED BY RECALLING THE ORDER IN T HE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL FOR A.Y 2003-04 AND SUITABLE ORDERS PASSED UPHOLDIN G THE ADDITIONS. THE M.P IS FILED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CIT(CENTR AL)-I, CHENNAI. MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 6 3. FURTHER THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT I N THE CASE OF M/S.VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE CHAIRMAN, IT WAS HELD IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., SHRI T .R.PATCHMUTH, CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO SUCH DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE A SSESSMENT YEARS HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE VERY SAME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE M/S.VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS BEFORE US AS FOLLOWS AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON M.P. 81 & 82 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-3 & 2003-04 THE SENIOR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE -4, VIDE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, SEEKS THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NOS.1673 & 1674/MDS./2007 DATED 30/03/2010. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TH AT IN AS MUCH AS THE MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 7 HONBLE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS .1557, 1558 & 1559/MDS./2010 DATED 11/01/2011 IN THE CASE OF VALL IAMMAL SOCIETY IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS THE CHAIRMAN, HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROMOTES SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS ASSESSABLE IN THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2010 PASSED BY TE TRIBUNAL DELETING THE ADDIT ION NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. THE ASSESSEE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE M.P. FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS: 1) THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECALLED IN THE CASE OF T.R.PACHAMUTHU, WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MARCH, 2010 WHEREAS THE O RDER RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE WAS PASSED IN JANUARY, 2011. 2) IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE MEMBER S OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT THE ADDITION IN QUE STION COULD NEVER BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF T.R.PACHAMUTHU ON THE BASIS O F SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ONLY PHOTOCOPIES. 3) FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT MR.T.R .PACHAMUTHU SIGNED THE PROMOTES IN THE CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF VALLIAMAI S OCIETY AND NOT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CON SIDERED DECISION WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE T.R.PACH AMUTHU AND IT CANNOT BE SAID BECAUSE OF AN OBSERVATION MADE SUBSEQUENTLY WH ILE DECIDING AN APPEAL IN ANOTHER CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL WAS A MISTAKE. ASSUMING WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT MISTAKE HAS CREPT I N THE ORDER, IT IS THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2011 OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY WHICH MAY REQUIRE TO BE RECALLED. HOWEVER, THIS MIGHT BECOME ACADEMIC SINC E THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY FOR WANT OF RECORDING OF MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 8 SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONTEMPLAT ED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER REL IED ON BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 WH EREAS THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF T.R.PACHAMUTHU PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THUS, THE M.P FILED BY THE REVENUE BASED ON AN IRRELEVANT ORDER IS BASICALLY FLAWED AND NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED. IT MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT IN PARA 8 AT PAGE OF THE TRIBUN ALS ORDER RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE; THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD ONLY OBSERVED THA T IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO TREAT THE POSSIBLE TAXABLE INCOME OF AN INDIVIDU AL AS AN EXEMPTED INCOME OF AN APPROVED SOCIETY WITHOUT COGENT REASONS. TH US, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FI NDING THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF SRI T.R.PACHAM UTHU. EVEN ON THIS ACCOUNT THE M.P FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAI NABLE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER ON NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1004 OF 2014 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGE)NO.874 OF 2014 DATED 13/02/2015 IN TH E CASE OF SOMERSET PLACE C0-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY VS. ITO 16(2)(1) COMME NTED AS UNDER: A NEW RULING IS NO GROUND FOR REVIEWING A PREVIOU S JUDGMENT. IF THIS IS PERMITTED, THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE IS CONFUSION, CHOOS, UNCERTAINTY AND INCONVENIENCE AS THEN NO ORDERS CAN EVER ATTAIN FIN ALITY THROUGH ACCEPTED BY PARTIES. THE M.P FILED BY THE REVENUE BASED ON A SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY FOR A.YS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 IS MISPLACED AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED. MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 9 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLAN T PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE M.P. FILED B Y THE REVENUE AND RENDER JUSTICE. ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRO-NOTES SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY WAS DELETE D BY THE LD. CIT (A). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE H ONBLE ITAT,CHENNAI VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO.1673 & 1674/MDS./2007 DA TED 30/03/2010 IN PARA NO.22, THE HONBLE A BENCH DELETED THE ADDITION H OLDING THAT THE SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY . ON A SINMILIAR ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF THE SOCIETY, THE HONBLE C BENCH DELETED THE SAME AS PER PARA 8 OF ORDER NO.15 57, 1558 & 1559/MDS./2010 FOR THE A.Y 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF T.R.PACHAMUTHU. SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SOCIETY AND ALSO AS HELD BY THE HONBLE C BE NCH THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE AS HE A SEPARATE JURIDICAL PERSON AN D THAT SECTION.292C OF THE IT ACT APPLIES WITH REGARD TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE A BENCH IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE MAY BE RECALLED. NO M.P. HAS BEEN FILED IN THE CASE OF THE SOCIETY. 5. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ORDERS WERE PASSED ON MERITS BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE AS IN THE CASE OF M/S.VALLIAMMAL SOC IETY THE APPEAL WAS HELD AGAINST THE REVENUE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS I .E. FOR WANT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONTEMPLATED MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 10 UNDER SECTION153C OF THE ACT AND NOT ON MERITS. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, THEREFORE BOTH THE MISCELLANEOU S PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. A.R. HAS MERITS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUN AL IN ITS DECISION RENDERED DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2010 HAD HELD T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF M/S. VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER D URING THE PERIOD JANUARY 2011 HAD DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE I N THE HANDS OF M/S. VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. I T WAS THEREFORE HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGS TO STAND. ON MERITS THERE WERE NO DIS CUSSIONS. THESE FACTS ARE ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. D.R. THEREF ORE, IT CANNOT BE MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 11 SAID THAT THERE WERE CONTRADICTORY DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE CASE OF M/S.VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE DO NOT HAVE ANY MERIT . 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH JUNE , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' # ) ( V.DURGA RAO ) ( % . &'() *+&, ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH JUNE, 2015. !!'#$!%$ /COPY TO: ! 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ! &!' /CIT(A) 4. ! & /CIT 5. $( )!''*+ /DR 6. ) ,-!. /GF MP NO.81 & 82/MDS/14 12