Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection (CO) filed by the assessee-company directed against the order of the ITA No.1644/19 & co79/19 :- 2 -: learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 13.03.2019 for the assessment year (AY) 2013-2014.
The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:
‘’1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT(A) has erred by setting aside the reassessment order made by the A.O.
The CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the reassessment proceedings on the surmise that “Assessing Officer has proceeded to conclude the assessment without dealing with objections of the assessee” especially when the Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order on 14.12.2018 disposing off all objections of assessee.
The CIT(A) has erred by setting aside the reassessment proceedings especially when the speaking order passed by the Assessing Officer was physically served on assessee’s Authorised Representative and also served by post as well as by e-mail.
The CIT(A) ought to have upheld the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 passed by the Assessing Officer on 21.12.2018 after disposing off all objections raised by the assessee by a speaking order dated 14. 12.2018.
For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’.
The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.
The respondent-assessee namely M/s. Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies
ITA No.1644/19 & co79/19 :- 3 -:
Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of quarrying and production of granite, limestone and graphite. The return of income for the AY 2013-14 was filed on 28.09.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.2,54,46,683/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘’Assessing Officer’’) vide order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) at total income of �2,65,41,398/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of �2,82,407/- invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and prior period expenses of �8,12,308/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the prior period expenditure to the extent of �95,10,561/- was wrongly allowed in the original assessment, accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.03.2018, after receipt of notice u/s.148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 03.04.2018 declaring total income of �2,54,46,680/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘’Assessing Officer’’) vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at total income of �3,60,40,440/- by disallowing prior period expenditure of �95,10,561/-.
ITA No.1644/19 & co79/19 :- 4 -:
Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. 4.
CIT(A), challenging the validity of the very reassessment proceedings on the ground that reassessment proceedings were prompted by mere change of opinion. The ld. CIT(A) had squashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not disposed off the objections filed against reassessment proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in squashing the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not disposed off the objections filed against reassessment proceedings, in as much as, the Assessing Officer had disposed the objections by speaking order dated 14.12.2018.
Assessee had also filed Cross Objection that the reopening is 6. bad in law, in as much as, it was prompted by mere change of opinion, placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2010) 320 ITR 561.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 7. record. Ld. Authorised Representative fairly conceded that objections filed by the assessee against reassessment proceedings were disposed of by the Assessing Officer by passing speaking order. In the ITA No.1644/19 & co79/19 :- 5 -: circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) had seriously fell in error by squashing the reassessment proceedings on the ground that objections filed by the assessee were not disposed of, we also notice that ld. CIT(A) had not dealt with other contentions challenging reassessment proceeding, such as, on change of opinion etc raised by the assessee and also not dealt with merits of the issue in the appeal. In the circumstances, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We make it clear that it is open to the Respondent-assessee to raise all the contentions of the issue in the appeal. Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Cross Objection filed by the assessee company contending 8. that reassessment proceedings were not valid in law as the reassessment proceeding were prompted by mere change of opinion.
Since this issue was not dealt with by the ld. CIT(A), as we kept this issue alive before the ld. CIT(A) in appeal filed by the Revenue (supra). The Cross Objection filed by the assessee had become infructuous.
ITA No.1644/19 & co79/19 :- 6 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly 9. allowed for statistical purpose and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 25th day of February, 2020, at Chennai.