ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Danfoss Industries Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 99/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8908 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.99(MDS)/2012 IN ITA NO.612(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(4), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. DANFOSS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,296-OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD, SHOLINGANALLUR, CHENNAI-600 119. PAN AABCD0321M. (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI S.DAS G UPTA, IRS, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.BANUSEKAR , FCA DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH AUGUST, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH AUGUST, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVEN UE. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE PETITION IS IN THE NATURE OF RECTIFICATION PETITION. IT IS FILED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9 TH MAY, 2012, PASSED IN ITA NO.612/MDS/2011. - - MP 99 OF 2012 2 2. IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. NOW, THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED A SIMILAR CASE OF SECTI ON 263 REVISION FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AS WELL, ON SIMILAR GROUNDS AND THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE REVISIO N ORDER TO A GREAT EXTENT AND AS SUCH THE PRESENT ORDER IS ERRON EOUS. THE REVENUE HAS PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23-12-2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.702(MDS) /2010. 4. WE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHE LD THE REVISION ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETA ILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM OF EXPENSES. BUT, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS DEEMED THAT THOSE DETAILS HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND AS SUCH THERE CANNOT BE A MIST AKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT APPLI ED HIS MIND ON - - MP 99 OF 2012 3 THE ISSUE. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS AN OPINION, WHERE THERE WILL BE MORE THAN ONE POSSIBIL ITY. IT IS ON THIS GROUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE REV ISION ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE AS SUCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 24 TH OF AUGUST, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.