FLORIND SHOES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 599/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 November 2017AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the issues related to the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 2,11,50,000/- as it related to a previous year. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the disallowance before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings and whether the expenditure was correctly disallowed. The Tribunal focused on the adequacy of the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 15.11.2017Pronounced: 20.11.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

Assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in dated 31.01.2017 for assessment year 2005-06.

2.

M/s. Florind Shoes P. Ltd., the assessee, is an exporter of leather shoes. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on :-2-: ITA No. 599/Mds/2017 15.03.2013, while doing so, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,11,50,000/- representing 4,50,000 US Dollars paid during the assessment year 2005-06 as the expenditure related to previous year which is not related to this year. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings and disallowance of the impugned payment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal once again challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings and disallowance of the payment of Rs. 2,11,50,000/-.

3.

The AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the re-assessment by rejecting the objections, arguments advanced by the assessee without assigning proper reasons and justifications. Per contra, the DR invited or attention to Para 4.2 of the order of the CIT(A) and submitted the following findings of the CIT(A):

“The appellant has not been able to present any convincing evidence before me that the impugned issue was considered and a view taken. The appellant has not presented me that the impugned issue was considered and a view taken. The appellant has not presented any evidence that details on the impugned issue were called, or that a definite finding was arrived at on the issue. Hence, the question of change of opinion on the issue does not arise. I told the re-assessment proceedings to be good in law. The technical grounds raised on the validity of re-assessment proceedings stand dismissed” and pleaded that the assessee’s plea is not right .

4.

The AR rebutted saying that the assessee objected to the re-assessment based on the audit objections before the CIT(A). In this regard, he relied on the ratio of the Supreme Court in India and Eastern Newspaper vs CIT (1979) 119 ITR

:-3-: ITA No. 599/Mds/2017 996 (SC) and pleaded that the audit objections on a point or opinion of law does not constitute “information” for re-opening. This issue has not been dealt with by the CIT(A) and hence his order may be deleted.

5.

We heard the rival contentions. We are of the opinion that the issues related to the re-opening of the assessment has not been adequately addressed by the CIT(A) as canvassed by the AR, and hence this issue is remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after giving adequate opportunity to the AO/assessee, as the case may be, decide the validity of re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law by a speaking order. On the other issue, we do not express any opinion.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 20th day of November, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →