Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dalmer India Commercial Vehicles (P) ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 8 August, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य केसम&
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
'व'वध या चकासं/ M.P. No.202/Chny/2018
(in I.T.A. No.563/Chny/2017)
नधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year : 2010-11
M/s Daimler India Commercial
Vehicles (P.) Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of
SIPCOR Industrial Growth, v. Income Tax,
Oragadam, Mathur Post, Corporate Circle 1(1),
Kancheepuram - 602 105. Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AABCF 1590 N
(+ाथ(क/Petitioner) (+-यथ./Respondent)
+ाथ(क क0 ओरसे /Petitioner by : None
+-यथ. क0 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,
Addl.CIT
सन
ु वाई क0 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02.08.2019
घोषणा क0 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2019
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee filed the present Miscellaneous Petition under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. The notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as 2 M.P. No.202/Chny/18 proof of service of notice. Inspite of receipt of notice by registered post, the assessee chose to remain absent when the Miscellaneous Petition was taken up for hearing. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the Miscellaneous Petition on merit.
3. We heard the Ld. D.R. We find that the main grievance of the assessee appears to be that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of business loss of ₹19,25,26,321/-. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the business was not set up is contrary to the finding of the Assessing Officer. It appears from the material available on record that the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of this Tribunal dated 31.05.2018 before the High Court in T.C.A. No.958 of 2018 and the High Court also admitted the appeal filed by the assessee and framed a question of law to be adjudicated. The question arises for consideration is when the assessee has already filed appeal before the High Court and the same is admitted by the High Court, can the assessee prosecute the present Miscellaneous Petition which also arises on the same set of facts when comes for adjudication? The Madras High Court in W.A.No.288 of 2011 found that the litigant cannot pursue parallel remedies before two forums. In the case before the High Court, the 3 M.P. No.202/Chny/18 assessee filed review application praying for review of the judgment of High Court and parallely, the assessee also filed a petition before the Apex Court. In those facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court found that the litigant cannot pursue parallel remedies. In view of the judgment of High Court, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot pursue parallel remedy one before the High Court and another before this Tribunal.
4. With the above observation, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the court on 8th August, 2019 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(इंटूर रामा राव) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Inturi Rama Rao) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
7दनांक/Dated, the 8 August, 2019.
Kri.
आदे श क0 + त8ल'प अ9े'षत/Copy to:
1. +ाथ(क/Petitioner
2. +-यथ./Respondent
3. आयकर आयु:त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु:त/CIT
5. 'वभागीय + त न ध/DR
6. गाड( फाईल/GF.