Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Addl. Cit, Trichy vs The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur on 2 November, 2018
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
ी अ!ाहम पी.जॉज&, लेखा सद य केसम)
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*व*वध या चका सं / M.P. Nos.387 & 388/chny/2017
(in I.T.A. No.1341/Mds/2013 & I.T.A. No.1547/Mds/2013)
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2005-06
The Deputy Commissioner of M/s The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Income Tax, v. Erode Road,
Circle - 2(1), Karur - 639 001.
Trichy.
PAN : AAACT 3373 J
(-ाथ&क/Petitioner) (-/यथ0/Respondent)
-ाथ&क क2 ओर से /Petitioner by : Shri B. Naveen Kumar, JCIT
-/यथ0 क2 ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Lalitha Rameswaran, CA
सन
ु वाई क2 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02.11.2018
घोषणा क2 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2018
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The Revenue has filed these Miscellaneous Petitions before this Tribunal on the ground that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 27.04.2017.
2. Shri B. Naveen Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that this Tribunal deleted the addition 2 M.P. Nos.387 & 388/Chny/17 made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was not issued within the time limit. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee raised this issue before this Tribunal for the first time. This Tribunal by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. (2015) 370 ITR 87, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) is not an error in view of the judgment of Madras High Court in Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT (294 ITR
233), therefore, the order of this Tribunal has to be modified.
3. We heard Ms. Lalitha Rameswaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee also. This Tribunal by placing its reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Gitsons Engineering Co. (supra), found that non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed is bad in law, therefore, deleted the part addition. This Tribunal took a conscious decision by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court which is binding on all the authorities in the State. Therefore, if the Department is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal or the judgment of Madras High Court, it is upto them to take up the matter before the higher forum in a manner known to law. Modifying the order or reviewing 3 M.P. Nos.387 & 388/Chny/17 the order is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. Under Section 254(2) of the Act, only a prima facie error, which is apparent on the face of record, can be rectified. In this case, the Tribunal took a conscious decision on the basis of the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal finds no merit in the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
4. With the above observation, both the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 2nd November, 2018 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(अ!ाहम पी.जॉज&) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Abraham P. George) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
nd
9दनांक/Dated, the 2 November, 2018.
Kri.
आदे श क2 - त:ल*प अ;े*षत/Copy to:
1. -ाथ&क/Petitioner
2. -/यथ0/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु<त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु<त/CIT
5. *वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड& फाईल/GF.