Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 (1) ... vs Citicorp Finance (India) Limited, ... on 23 February, 2018
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण," सी " खंडपीठ मुबं ई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-"C",BENCH सव ी जोिग दर सह, याियक सद य एवं राजे , लेखा सद य Before S/Shri Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member MA168/Mum/2017 (Arising out of ITA/ 3610/Mum/2011,िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2000-01) The Addl. CIT, Range-10(1) Citicorp Finance (I) Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. 5th Floor, Plot C-61, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN:AABCC 4881 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent) Revenue by: S/Shri Rajat Mittal (DR) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Sonde-AR सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing 23.02.2018 घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 23.02.2018 आदे श/Order लेखा सद य, राजे के अनुसार- Per Rajendra AM:
Vide his application dtd.31/03/2017,the Assessing Officer(AO)has stated that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Department holding that it was barred by time limit,that the appeal was filed in time,that the matter needed reconsideration,that the above order should be recalled.
2.During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)reiterated the arguments that are part of the MA.The Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the AO had not pointed out any mistake in the order of the Tribunal,that he wanted reconsideration of the order, that there was no mistake in the impugned order.
3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the return of income for the year was filed on 29/11/2000,declaring total income at Rs. 21.64 Crores,that the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 31/01/2003, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 26.91 Crores,that matter travelled up to the Tribunal,that vide its order dated 16/08/2007(ITA/5832/ Mum/2003),the Tribunal set aside the assessment order passed on 31/01/2003 on the issue of quantification of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, that the assessee moved an application u/s.254(2)before the Tribunal,that vide its order dated 16/08/2007,the application was disposed,that in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the AO 1 completed the assessment u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act,on 02/12/ 2008,determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 23.30 Crores,that the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA),who partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee,that on 17/02/2009,the AO passed rectification order u/s.154 of the Act,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.46.07Crores for the year under consideration,that the assessee challenged the rectification order before the FAA,who held that the appeal filed by the assessee was infructuous, that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal held as under:
4.After going through the above order,we find that the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the AO for a 'fresh adjudication'. It was not a case of simple direction to the AO,wherein he had to give appeal effect only.It was a matter,where the AO had to not only decide the applicability of certain sections,but also had to decide the nature of the sections.We are reproducing the relevant portion of the order of the AO and it reads as under:
"The Tribunal had directed the AO to decide as to whether the sub-sections (2) and (3) of subsection 14A of the Act were retroactive in operation.Thus,it was a case of fresh adjudication. Therefore,in our opinion,the FAA was not justified in holding that the provisions of section 153(3)(iii) were applicable to the case under consideration. Reversing his order, we hold that the order passed by the AO was not valid and was barred by time-limit as prescribed by the provisions of section with 153(2A) of the Act."
We find that the Tribunal had also relied upon the case of Instruments and Control Co. (349 ITR
571) of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to decide the issue of applicability of time limit.In our opinion,the time limit prescribed by the section 153(2A) of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case and that provisions of section 153(3)(iii) would not be applicable.We are of the opinion that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal.Hence we decide the issue against the AO.
As a result MA filed by the AO stands dismissed.
फलतः.िनधा रती अिधकारी ारा दािखल कया गया िविवध आवेदन प नामंजूर कया जाता है.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd, February 2018.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 23 फरवरी,2018 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(जोिग
दर
सह/Joginder Singh) (राजे /RAJENDRA)
याियक सद य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा
सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 23 .02.2018.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ!ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ"
2. Respondent /#$यथ"
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब' अपीलीय आयकर आयु),
4.The concerned CIT /संब' आयकर आयु)
5.DR " C " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय #ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई 2
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स$यािपत #ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
3