Poshak Industries, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 85/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4449 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: M P SENTHIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NO.85/MDS/2016 ./ I.T.A. NO. 332/MDS/2013 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 M/S. POSHAK INDUSTRIES, NO.15, RACE COURSE ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032. [PAN AAAFP 3600K ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI. ( PETITIONER ) ( /RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI. M.P. SENTHIL KUMAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. DURAI PANIDAN, IRS, JCIT. & ' / DATE OF HEARING : 24-06-2016 ()% & ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-06-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.332/MDS/2016, DATED 31.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. MP. NO.85/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NO. 332/MDS/2013) :- 2 -: 2. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 234B OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.06.201 5 AND DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA KUMAR SABOO (HUF) AND ANOTHER VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 340 ITR 382 AND HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000 IS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT AND IS PROSPECTIVE AND SHALL NOT A PPLY AND FURTHER RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE BY DEPARTMENT ON THE GUISE OF GIVING EFFECT TO ITAT ORDER IS NOT IN ORDER. 3. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ALREADY A FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON MERITS AND THE AGAIN MATTER GOING BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF JUSTICE AND REQUESTED FOR EXPUNGING THE LAST SENTE NCE IN PARA 7 OF PAGE 10 I.E. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE FILE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE POST AND PR E AMENDMENT PROVISIONS AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONS IDERED THE DISPUTED ISSUE ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MP. NO.85/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NO. 332/MDS/2013) :- 3 -: 5. WE CONSIDERED THE APPARENT FACTS ON RECORD. SINCE W E HAVE ALREADY GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT INTEREST U/ S.234B CANNOT BE LEVIED FOR 70 MONTHS WHILE PASSING ORDER. SO, WE SU BSTITUTE THE SENTENCE AS PRAYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY REMITTING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE, WE FIND MERITS IN THE ARGUME NT OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FINAL FINDINGS IN OUR ORDER IS CHANGED AND TO BE READ AS ALLOWED INSTEAD OF PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MP OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI . / DATED:28.06.2016 KV / & 0''12 32%' / COPY TO: 1 . PETITIONER 3. ;' () / CIT(A) 5. 2<= 0''' / DR 2. 0>?@ / RESPONDENT 4. ;' / CIT 6. =A$ B / GF