BHARANEEDHARS REFINERIES PVT. LTD.,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, COIMBATORE

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that there was a search in the premises of the Director of the assessee on 31.12.2012 and 29.01.2013. The assessment came to be passed Uls.153C r.W.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2015. The assessee had filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and on 14.09.2015 the same came to be allowed. The Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal came to be passed on 30.12.2017 against which the assessee had filed an appeal to the learned CITA): It was a submission that in the meantime an order uls.154 of the Act came to be passed on 20.03.2018, wherein additional surcharge came to be levied on the assessee. The assessee had filed an appeal against the said Section 154 order before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) disposed of the said appeal vide the impugned order: It was a submission that subsequently the learned CIT(A) also disposed of the main appeal against the quantum assessment in ITAA No.229/19-20 dated 18.12.2019. It was a submission that in the said order the learned CIT(A) had deleted the additions made. It was submitted that in the said order as the income has been upheld in the case of the Director, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee company on protective basis came to be deleted, It was thus a submission that consequent to the deletion, no income TAX APPELLA BHAVAN: CHEnN ITA No.2897Chny/ 2019 8-3 - was left accessible in the hands of the assessee. It was a submission that consequently no surcharge was leviable on the assessee It was also a submission that the levy of the additional surcharge in an order Uls.154 of the Act was not permissible as the same was a debatable issue: 4 In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed in SO far as the quantum appeal has already been disposed of in favour of the assessee: 5_ We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record: 6 Admittedly, in the present case, the quantum addition has been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order in appeal No.229/19-20 dated 18.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In the said order; the learned CIT(A) has categorically given his findings that "since the income has been upheld in the case of the Director; Mr: T.M Ramalingam in a substantive manner , therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the case of the company; Ms. Bharaneedhars Refineries Private Limited [B.RPL] on protective basis is deleted"_ perusal of the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 shows that the addition being an amount of Rs.2,25,86,094/- has been assessed on an protective basis in the. hands of the assessee , herein being Mls. Bharaneedhars Refineries Private Limited [B.R.P.L] and it has been assessed TAX AppeLAS 1 RAJAJI S BHAVAN, CHenna) ITA No.2897Chny/2019 "4- on a substantive basis in the case of Mr T.M Ramalingam This being s0, as the addition made protectively in the hands of the assessee has been deleted, there is no tax leviable in the hands of the assessee on which additional surcharge is leviable. This being so, the appeal filed by the assessee no more survives and is consequently dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2020 in Chennai. %t W, TTH) (S. JAYARAMAN) (if H1e) (GEORGE MATHAN) adt RR4IACCOUNTANT MEMBER 7v HTRIJUDICIAL MEMBER Ynfem #et % CERTIFIEDdzfiChennai, farid/Dated: 21st January, 2020. IA, Sr: PS ( U vweis #ttt DYJASSTT ReGisTRAR Mruor #iriq Mdtgt IGoMejNX ArpelLaxeran 74 73 CHENNAI Uene54d 31181 #fafy arafeaICopy to: 1. ar-flarffIAppellant 2. TryeffIRespondent 3 . 3114r 31ryTh (arrIa)CIT(A) 4. 315T HTYTICIT 5. fairfly "AfeIDR 6. TT&f 5TRIGF TAX, APPELL BHAV VAN, CHENNL