Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Acit Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs M.V.Muthuramalingam, Chennai on 13 August, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य केसम%
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3143/Chny/2017
नधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year : 2006-07
The Assistant Commissioner of Shri M.V. Muthuramalingam,
Income Tax, v. No.21-A, T.S. Krishna Nagar,
Central Circle - 2(4), Mogappair, Chennai - 600 037.
Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AAKPM 0400 G
(अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)
अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
,-यथ+ क. ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
सन
ु वाई क. तार ख/Date of Hearing : 13.08.2018
घोषणा क. तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai, dated 05.09.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.
2. We heard Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel 2 I.T.A. No.3143/Chny/17 for the assessee. Admittedly, the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than ₹20 lakhs, which is less than the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for the Revenue to file appeal before this Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax, while directing the Assessing Officer to file appeal before this Tribunal, had not considered the so-called audit objection said to be raised by the Revenue's audit party. Since the Revenue's audit party objection was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner at the time of granting permission to file the appeal before this Tribunal, the appeal is not maintainable. It is obligatory for the Assessing Officer or the other authority to bring to the notice of the Commissioner the audit objection, if any, at the time of putting up the papers for direction / approval under Section 253(2) of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner. Since the Commissioner had not considered the so-called audit objection at the time of granting approval / direction for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable. This view of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of Madras High Court in Principal CIT v. M/s Paragon Steels (P.) Ltd. (T.C.A. No.579 of 2017) dated 07.12.2017. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
3 I.T.A. No.3143/Chny/17
3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 13th August, 2018, at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
4दनांक/Dated, the 13 August, 2018.
Kri.
आदे श क. , त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant
2. ,-यथ+/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु8त (अपील)/CIT(A)-18, Chennai-34
4. Principal CIT, Central-2, Chennai
5. 6वभागीय , त न ध/DR
6. गाड' फाईल/GF.