TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Chennai, dated 30.06.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2003-04.

Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee after reproducing the observation made by the Administrative Commissioner while passing revision order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has already filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Administrative Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act. Since the appeal is pending before the High Court for adjudication in respect of the proceeding against the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this appeal may be kept pending till the appeal is decided by the High Court. On a query from the Bench, the Ld.counsel clarified that the High Court has not stayed the order passed by this Tribunal in respect of this appeal.

We have heard Shri M. Murugaboopathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the Administrative Commissioner has examined the issue elaborately and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the book profit on the basis of direction. The Assessing Officer has computed the book profit on the basis of direction given by the Administrative Commissioner. In fact, the assessee challenged the order of the Administrative Commissioner passed in exercise of his revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act, before this Tribunal. This Tribunal admittedly confirmed the order of the Administrative Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act. Now the assessee claims that the matter is pending before the High Court.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has followed the direction that was given by the Administrative Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Act, which was ultimately confirmed by this Tribunal also.

Section 158A of the Act provides for procedure to be followed when identical question of law is pending before the High Court or Supreme Court, in order to avoid repetitive appeals. The assessee or the Revenue has not filed any petition under Section 158A of the Act undertaking to accept the order of the High Court or Supreme Court when the matter is said to be pending before the High Court. In those circumstances, this Tribunal do not find any reason to keep the matter pending.

Coming to the merit, the Assessing Officer admittedly carried out the direction of the Administrative Commissioner as confirmed by this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.