ORBIT CORPORATION LTD ( FORMERLY M/S. ORBIT BUILDCON & REALTY P.LTD SINCE MERGED WITH M/S, ORBIT CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

At the outset, Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that in all the instant appeals, assessee raised a legal ground questioning the AO’s decision in making assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the proceedings for the assessment years under consideration are pending before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission for final disposal. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 vide ITA Nos. 1458 & 1460/Mum/2013, dated 30.6.2015 and brought our attention to paras 3 to 5 of the said Tribunal. Further, he also filed a copy of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Pujit R. Aggarwal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1641 to 1647/Mum/2013 for the AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11, dated 4.9.2014 and mentioned that in the above said cases, an identical issue came up before the Tribunal. While adjudicating those appeals, the Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes with the following comments vide para 5 of the said Tribunal’s order dated 30.6.2015. For the sake of completeness of this order, the said relevant para 5 is extracted as under:- “5. It is quite well understood that the ITSC has exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings in the course of which certain incomes have been disclosed by the assessee; and, the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the ITSC and the incomes determined thereof would have to be statutorily adopted by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years. Ostensibly, the matter is pending before the ITSC for final disposal, as contended by the Ld Representative for the assessee before us. In this background of the matter, the impugned order of the CIT (A) is set-aside and the assessment is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the awaited final order of the ITSC. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds for statistical purposes with respect to Ground of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3.”

After hearing both the parties, we find, the legal issue under consideration in all these appeals is identical to the one already decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case and in the case of Pujit R. Aggarwal (supra). As a result, it is a settled proposition of law that ITSC has exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings in the course of which certain income has been disclosed by the assessee. The outcome of such proceedings has to be statutorily adopted by the AO in relevant AY. In all the appeals under consideration, assessee is undisputedly before the ITSC and the outcome of the same is awaited. In these factual matrix, we set-aside the impugned orders of the CIT (A) in all the appeals under consideration and remand the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with identical directions. Thus,

Considering our decision on the legal ground raised in all the appeals, we find, the adjudication of other grounds raised in all the instant appeals becomes academic exercise. Therefore, the rest of the grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals are dismissed.

In the result, all the 8 appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2016. (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 23.2.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////