ACIT CIRCLE 1, SALEM vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD., SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3169/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 October 2018AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had already passed an order allowing the damages for remittance to the Pension Fund. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning damages for remittance to a Pension Fund. The assessee argued that the appeal was infructuous as the Assessing Officer had already allowed the damages as per the CIT(A)'s directions.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the Assessing Officer has already acted upon the directions of the CIT(A), rendering the appeal infructuous.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 02.08.2018Pronounced: 15.10.2018

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘डी’’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद� एवं �ी धु�ु� आर.एल रे�ी, �ाियक सद� के सम� Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3169/Chny/2017 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No. 12, Salem. Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636007. [PAN: AAACT7678J] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Ms. Sushma Harini, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem dated 29.09.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on damages for remittance to Pension Fund in the appellate order.

2.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by three days, for which, the Revenue has filed petition in support of an affidavit for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of three days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the order of the ld. CIT(A) directing the Assessing to find out how much of the expenditure is compensatory in nature or penal in nature and allow only the expenditure compensatory in nature, by considering the submissions of the assessee that the payments were compensatory in nature and not penalty in support of Government’s order, details of interest paid and detailed explanation, the Assessing Officer allowed the damages for remittance of Pension Fund Trust of ₹.2,35,91,384/- vide his order dated 15.11.2017. In view of the above the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed by the Department is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as infructuous. The ld. DR fairly conceded the above submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Being so, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed as infructuous.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 15th October, 2018 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →