Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dcit, Chennai vs Indian Bank,, Chennai on 23 November, 2016
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ड.एस. सु दर $संह, लेखा सद य केसम)
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1234/Mds/2016
नधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year : 2005-06
The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Indian Bank,
Income Tax, v. Corporate Office,
Corporate Circle - 2(2), 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Chennai - 600 034. Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.
PAN : AAACI 1607 G
(अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent)
अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
01यथ/ क2 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Swaminathan, CA
सन
ु वाई क2 तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 18.10.2016
घोषणा क2 तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Chennai, dated 01.03.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2005-06.
2. Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer by an order under Section 154 2 I.T.A. No.1234/Mds/16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') disallowed the excess deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that once the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal on the basis of judgment of Madras High Court, the Assessing Officer does not have any authority to rectify the assessment under Section 154 of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the decision of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Vilas Bank in I.T.A. Nos.551, 552, 553/Mds/2009 dated 18.12.2009. In fact, the order of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Vilas Bank was recalled by an order dated 16.12.2010. The Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
3. We have heard Shri S. Swaminathan, the Ld. representative for the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, by placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Vilas Bank (supra). The order of the CIT(Appeals) was subsequently confirmed by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the recall of the order by this 3 I.T.A. No.1234/Mds/16 Tribunal in Lakshmi Vilas Bank (supra) would not materially affect the decision taken by the CIT(Appeals). According to the Ld. representative, the order of the Assessing Officer in the original assessment was merged with order of the CIT(Appeals) and subsequently the same was merged with the order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in the guise of exercising power under Section 154 of the Act cannot disturb the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and this Tribunal. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.03.2013, disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of ` 1,30,20,57,500/-. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) by an order dated 06.03.2014, allowed the claim of the assessee, apparently, by placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Vilas Bank (supra). The Revenue carried the matter before this Tribunal on appeal and this appeal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Subsequently, it appears that the order in Lakshmi Vilas Bank (supra) was recalled and the matter was 4 I.T.A. No.1234/Mds/16 remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. It is pertinent to note that the order in the assessee's appeal, passed by the CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, was not disturbed and in fact, admittedly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed by this Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessee, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was merged with order of this Tribunal. Hence, the Assessing Officer cannot disturb the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and this Tribunal in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the Assessing Officer has no authority to alter the order of the CIT(Appeals) or of this Tribunal and accordingly he set aside the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23rd November, 2016 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
ु दर $संह)
( ड.एस. स (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(D.S. Sunder Singh) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
5 I.T.A. No.1234/Mds/16
चे नई/Chennai,
rd
8दनांक/Dated, the 23 November, 2016.
Kri.
आदे श क2 0 त$ल9प अ:े9षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ//Appellant
2. 01यथ//Respondent
3. आयकर आयु;त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु;त/CIT,
5. 9वभागीय 0 त न ध/DR
6. गाड+ फाईल/GF.