ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI vs. M.V.MUTHURAMALINGAM, CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai, dated 05.09.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.

We heard Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than ₹20 lakhs, which is less than the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for the Revenue to file appeal before this Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax, while directing the Assessing Officer to file appeal before this Tribunal, had not considered the so-called audit objection said to be raised by the Revenue’s audit party. Since the Revenue’s audit party objection was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner at the time of granting permission to file the appeal before this Tribunal, the appeal is not maintainable. It is obligatory for the Assessing Officer or the other authority to bring to the notice of the Commissioner the audit objection, if any, at the time of putting up the papers for direction / approval under Section 253(2) of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner. Since the Commissioner had not considered the so-called audit objection at the time of granting approval / direction for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable. This view of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of Madras High Court in Principal CIT v. M/s Paragon Steels (P.) Ltd. (T.C.A. No.579 of 2017) dated 07.12.2017. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.