DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai V. Fateh Leasing and Finance P Ltd, Chennai

MA 89/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2908 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Audit objection; Tax effect
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member M.P. No. 89/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.34/Chny/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai. Vs. M/s. Fateh Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., 6/13, North Avenue, Kesavaperumalpuram, Chennai – 600 028. [PAN: AAACF0390D] (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the Revenue seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 34/Chny/2017 dated 27.09.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The ld. DR relied on the petition and submitted that the appeal has been dismissed vide order in I.T.A. No. 34/Chny/2017 dated 27.09.2019 on the ground that the tax effect was below ₹.50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Now the Revenue filed the MP by M.P. No.89/Chny/20 2 stating that there is an audit objection and therefore, the order of the Tribunal may be recalled. It was further submission that there are proceedings towards rectification and the Assessing Officer has passed an order under section 154 of the Act by considering the audit objection in respect of interest as levied by 1% on tax due for the period from 01.04.2012 to 01.04.2014 amounting to ₹.14,98,341/-. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is in respect of unexplained investment and there is no audit objection on that. It was further submission that the audit objection was only in respect of interest which is not relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which is altogether different and therefore, there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act dated 05.08.2016 was based on the audit objection only relating to interest, which is nothing to do with the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained investment only. Therefore, we find that there is no mistake apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is a clear case that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue was less M.P. No.89/Chny/20 3 than the monetary limit of ₹.50 lakhs fixed by the CBDT to file an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The ld. DR was not able to controvert the above factual position. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case and we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the MP filed by the Department is dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 07 th September, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 07.09.2022 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.