Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 July, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Bench 'A' Chennai
BEFORE Dr.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
.....
ITA No.1632/Mds./10
A.Y : 2005-2006
Assistant Commissioner of M/s.Lakshmi Machine
Income Tax, Works Ltd.,.
Company Circle -IV(2), Vs. Perianaickenpalayam,
Income Tax Building, Combatore 641 020.
Base Course Road,
Combatore 641 018. (PAN No.AAACL 5244 N )
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Shaji P Jacob
Department by : None
ORDER
Per Dr.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2005-06. The appeal is directed against the order of CIT(A)- I at Coimbatore dated 08.07.2010 The appeal arises out of the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Page 2 of 3
ITA.1632 /Mds/10
2. In this case, the assessment was revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 and consequently order was passed by the assessing authority. While doing so, he not only carried out the directions of the CIT but also went further in disallowing expenditure u/s.14A. In first appeal, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer can not go beyond the specific directions issued by the CIT in his revision order and therefore, the additional point re-examined by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and accordingly, deleted the disallowances.
3. The Revenue is aggrieved and therefore, this appeal.
4. The main grievance of the Revenue is that once an assessment order is revised u/s.263, the whole assessment is thrown open before the assessing authority and in such circumstance, the CIT(A) has gone wrong in limiting the jurisdiction of the assessing authority.
5. Nobody appeared for the assessee respondent. We heard Shri Shaji P Jacob, the learned Commissioner for the Revenue. The CIT(A) has held that in a revision matter the Assessing Officer is to carry out the directions issued by the CIT. In fact, the assessing authority is translating the directions of the CIT in an enforceable action. Literally speaking the assessing authority is not exercising 'his own' jurisdiction but exercising the jurisdiction "delegated" by the CIT.
Page 3 of 3ITA.1632 /Mds/10
6. The delegatee can not go beyond the limit prescribed by the delegating authority. The Assessing Officer can not go beyond the directions of the CIT. Therefore, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the said disallowance.
7. This appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday the 23rd of December, 2010 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(GEORGE MATHAN) (Dr.O.K.NARAYANAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Chennai,
Dated the 23RD DECEMBER, 2010.
KSS
Copy to: Assessee/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./Guard file