Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
India Trimmings Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs Dcit, Coimbatore on 28 July, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी संजय अरोड़ा,लेखा सद य केसम'
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(व(वध या चका सं / M.P. No.110/Mds/2017
(in I.T.A. No.476/Mds/2016)
नधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year : 2011-12
M/s India Trimmings Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of
6/636, Pillaiappan Palayam, v. Income Tax,
Telungupalayam Post, Corporate Circle - 1,
Annur, Coimbatore - 641 653. 63-A, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore.
PAN : AAACI 6394 N
(,ाथ)क/Petitioner) (,.यथ//Respondent)
,ाथ)क क1 ओर से /Petitioner by : Sh. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
,.यथ/ क1 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क1 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 28.07.2017
घोषणा क1 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 31.01.2017.
2. Sh. A.S. Sriraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the 2 M.P. No..110/Mds/17 Assessing Officer for reconsideration. However, in the result, it was referred as "appeal of the Revenue stands allowed". According to the Ld. counsel, it should have been mentioned as "appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes". Since the word "statistical purposes" is not mentioned in the order, it creates confusion, therefore, the matter needs to be clarified.
3. We have heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, also. According to the Ld. D.R., there is no confusion in the order, therefore, the petition of the assessee has no merit.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. This Tribunal, after considering merit of the appeal filed by the Revenue, passed the order with following direction:-
"......... In view of the above, the order of the lower authorities including the DRP is set aside. The DRP shall decide the issue afresh after considering the relevant material on record. In the course of adjudication, it is open to the DRP to make further enquiry by itself or call for a relevant report either from the Assessing Officer or from the TPO or from any other income-tax authority and thereafter the issue arises for consideration has to be decided by the DRP itself. With the above observation, the issue is restored back to the file of the DRP."3 M.P. No..110/Mds/17
5. From the above order of this Tribunal, it is obvious that the orders of the authorities below, including that of DRP, were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the file of the DRP with the direction to make further enquiry by DRP itself and thereafter decide the matter. In the result, it was stated that "the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed". It is a common practice in the judiciary that when the order of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter was remitted back to their file, the result will be referred as "allowed". The ITAT has no function other than judicial function. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in saying that the appeal was allowed when the matter was remitted back to the file of the lower authorities after setting aside their orders. Merely because the word "statistical purposes" is not referred in the order, it does not create any doubt either in the mind of the Assessing Officer or in the mind of the litigant public. The fact remains that the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal was allowed. However, there was further direction to the authorities below to re-adjudicate the matter as indicated by this Tribunal. Therefore, there is no doubt which needs clarification as claimed by the Ld.counsel for the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
4 M.P. No..110/Mds/17
6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th July, 2017 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(संजय अरोड़ा) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Sanjay Arora) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
7दनांक/Dated, the 28 July, 2017.
Kri.
आदे श क1 , त8ल(प अ9े(षत/Copy to:
1. ,ाथ)क/Petitioner
2. ,.यथ//Respondent
3. आयकर आय:
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आय:
ु त/CIT
5. (वभागीय , त न ध/DR
6. गाड) फाईल/GF.