Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Mac Charles India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore on 21 August, 2018

        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 "C" BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
   AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                       ITA No.1523/Bang/2017
                      Assessment year : 2010-11

Deputy Commissioner of          Vs.   M/s. Mac Charles (India) Ltd.,
Income-tax,                           28, Sankey Road,
Circle - 4(1)(2), Bangalore,          Vasanthanagar,
Room No. 229,                         Bengaluru - 560 052.
2nd Floor, BMTC Building,             PAN : AAACM 9877 G
80 Feet Road, 6th Block,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095.
         APPELLANT                           RESPONDENT


                       C. O. No.81/Bang/2018
                      Assessment year : 2010-11


  M/s. Mac Charles (India) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
  28, Sankey Road,                   Income-tax,
  Vasanthanagar,                     Circle - 4(1)(2),
  Bengaluru - 560 052.               Bengaluru-560095.
  PAN : AAACM 9877 G
          APPELLANT                         RESPONDENT

    Revenue by     : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
    Assessee by    : Shri. Bharadwaj Seshadri, CA

             Date of hearing       : 26.07.2018
             Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018
                                             ITA No. 1523/Bang/2017 and C.O. No. 81/Bang/2018

                                       Page 2 of 4



                                     ORDER

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), inter alia, on following grounds:

1. The Order of the Ld.CIT (A) is opposed to the law and facts of the case.

2. On facts of the case, whether the Ld CIT (A) is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee merely relying on the ITAT's decision for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09, without appreciating the facts of the case.

3. On the facts of the case, whether the Ld.CIT (A) is right in apportioning the STCG with STCL with different tax slabs, i.e., apportioning the STCL which is taxable @15% against the STCG which is taxable @30%.

4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) in so far as it is relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds that may be urged.

2. Assessee has also filed the C.O. inter alia, on following grounds:

1. The return in reassessment proceedings having been furnished on 18-8-2014. the notice under section 143(2) ought to have been issued by 30-9-2015 but was issued only on 611-2015 and so the assessment is invalid and has to be annulled.

2. Reassessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 were completed on 30 March 2016 beyond limitation period and so are invalid, as the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

3. Reassessment proceedings ought not to have been initiated on mere change of opinion.

4. Reassessment proceedings are subject to section 147 and a departmental appeal for earlier years against tribunal orders favouring the assessee is not an adequate reason for reopening.

5. AO erred in not dealing with all of Appellant's objections to notice under section 148 before initiating proceedings and issuing notice under section 143(2) before disposal of the objections.

6. The Appellant craves leave to add to. amend. alter, vary and/ or withdraw any or all of these grounds of appeal. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing. the Respondent's cross objections be allowed.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the issue involved in Revenue's appeal is squarely covered by the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the CIT(A) has followed the order of the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).

4. Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities we find that CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), we confirm the order of the CIT(A). In the light of these facts, the C.O. of the assessee has become academic and the same is dismissed.

5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2018.

                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-
        (A. K. GARODIA)                           (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV)
       Accountant Member                             Judicial Member

Bangalore.
Dated: 21st August, 2018.
/NS/*
Copy to:
 1. Appellants          2. Respondent
 3. CIT                 4. DR
 4. Guard file
                                                          By order


                                                    Sr. Private Secretary,
                                                      ITAT, Bangalore.