TTK HEALTHCARE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी, �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI �ी महावीर �संह, उपा�य� एवं �ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.As.712 & 713/CHNYH/2023 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment years :2016-2017 & 2017-2018. M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.6, Cathedral Road, Corporate Ward 3(1) Gopalapuram, Chennai Chennai 600 086. [PAN AABCT3312J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.12.2023 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023. आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in orders No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052440479(1) and No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1052439444 (1) of even date 28.04.2023. The assessments were framed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1),

ITA Nos.712 & 713/CHNY/2023 :- 2 -:

Chennai for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-18 u/s.143(3) and 143(3) r.w.s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) respectively, vide orders dated 18.12.2019 and 27.02.2020 .

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. R. 2. Vijayaraghavan stated that in both the years, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without going into the merits because the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of standalone company M/s.TTK Healthcare Limited is pending for adjudication. Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us to the decision of ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2 which reads as under:-

‘’I find that the AO passed order u/s.154 rws 143(3) & 119 (2) (b) to give the effect to the CBDT order u/s.119(2)(b) granting the condonation of delay in filing the revised return by the amalgamated company. Therefore the AO while giving the effect to the to the CBDT order u/s 119(2)(b) computed the income taking into account all the orders passed in the case of amalgamated company and amalgamated companies. I find that in the amalgamated company (TTK Healthcare Ltd), assessment u/s 143(3) was passed 18/12/2019 determining total income at Rs.30,28,48,844/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the additions were made on account of logo charges expenses, Depot service charges, Disallowance u/s 14A. The appellant has filed appeal against the above assessment order before CIT(A) on 17/01/2020 which is still pending. I find that the appellant expected relief against the said additions based on the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT and CIT(A) in appellant's own case in earlier years, while passing the order u/s 154 rws 143(3) & 119(2)(b) to give the effect to the CBDT order u/s 119(2)(b). However, while giving the effect to the order of CBDT u/s 119(2)(b), the AO is not empowered to grant relief u/s 154 in respect of additions made during the course of regular assessment proceedings which are pending before the CIT(A).

ITA Nos.712 & 713/CHNY/2023 :- 3 -:

Thus I find that there is no mistake apparent from the records while passing the order u/s 154 rws 143(3) & 119(2)(b) to give the effect to the CBDT order u/s 119(2)(b). I find that the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are not coming out of the order giving effect to the order of CBDT u/s 119(2)(b). Therefore the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed’’.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that M/s.TTK Protective devices and M/s.Techno Services Ltd was amalgamated with the assessee company with effect from 01.04.2012. Hence, the assessee has to file a return including the income of the amalgamating company for the assessment year 2013-14 onwards. The appellant filed a return of income as a standalone company for the assessment year 2016-17 on 09.11.2016 and for assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017. Based on the above return, assessments u/s. 143(3) were completed for two years on 18.12.2019 and 25.12.2019 respectively. Against these orders on standalone company, appeals have been filed before the CIT(A) on 13.01.2020 which is still pending before the CIT(A). With the approval of the CBDT the appellant had filed consolidated return of income for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 on 28.03.2019. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground that another appeal was pending before the CIT(A) for the same assessment years. To sort out the same the assessee has preferred a petition to the CIT(A) before whom the earlier appeals were pending to dispose it off as infructuous as the assessment orders are no longer

ITA Nos.712 & 713/CHNY/2023 :- 4 -:

valid in view of the revised return after amalgamation. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted events in chronology order.

Assessment Assessment year year 2016-2017 2017-2018 1 Return filed on 9.11.2016 31.10.2017 2 Assessment order u/s.143(3) 18.12.2019 25.12.2019 3 Appeal before CIT(A) 17.1.2020 17.01.2020 4 M/s. TTK Techno shares amalgamated with Appellant w.e.f. 1.4.2012 by order of NCLT dated 15.12.2017 5 CBDT permitted revised return to be filed vide order dt 18.3.2020 6 Revised return filed on 28.3.2019 28.03.2019 7 Order u/s.143(3) on revised return 17.08.2020 17.08.2020 Order received on 09.09.2020 8 Appeal before CIT(A) 05.10.2020 16.09.2020 9 CIT(A) order 28.04.2023 28.04.2023.

From the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. 3. CIT(A) should not have disposed off these appeals and should have disposed earlier appeals pending for adjudication.

When this facts were confronted to ld. Departmental 4. Representative, he could not controvert the above factual positions.

ITA Nos.712 & 713/CHNY/2023 :- 5 -:

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and 5. circumstances of the case. From the above facts, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals filed earlier which are pending disposal and these two appeals are set aside to his file to adjudicate on merits. Hence the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and these two appeals are remitted back to his file for fresh adjudication of issues on merits raised before him.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.712 & 6. 713/CHNY/2013 for assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 19th December, 2023, at Chennai.

Sd/- P0Sd/- (मंजुनाथ. जी) (महावीर िसंह ) (MANJUNATHA.G) (MAHAVIR SINGH) लेखा सद� /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated:19.12.2023. KV आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3.. आयकर आयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/ DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF