DCIT, CHENNAI v. Saravana Stores (Tex), CHENNAI

ITA 990/CHNY/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 99021714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAWFS6761Q
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 990/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Saravana Stores (Tex), CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 23-11-2017
First Hearing Date 23-11-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 15-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI . . . ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.989 990 991 & 992/MDS/2016 & C.O. NOS.95 96 97 & 98/MDS/2016 (IN ITA NOS.989 990 991 & 992/MDS/2016) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S SARAVANA STORES (TEX) NO.45 RANGANATHAN STREET T. NAGAR CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAWFS 6761 Q ()*/ APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR) )* + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH CIT -.)* + / RESPONDENT BY : MS. JHARNA B. HARILAL CA / + 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2017 12' + 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)-18 CHENNAI DATED 27.01.2016 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE 2 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 CIT(APPEALS). SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSID ERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 64 DAYS IN FILING THE CROSS -OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE AND TH E LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SHRI S. BHARATH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE ON 18.08.2011. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS ISSUED ON 14.03.2012. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE ASSESSEE BY LETTER DATED 26.11.2012 R EQUESTED TO TREAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE T O THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AF TER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE MADE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HOWE VER THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY 3 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. INITIATION OF PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT THEREFORE IT DOES NO T DEPEND UPON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON A QUE RY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME E ARLIER AND TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF TH E ACT EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH? THE LD. D.R. VERY FAIRLY SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F THE ACT WAS ALSO EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 4. ON THE CONTRARY MS. JHARNA B. HARILAL THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR INITIATING PRO CEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT THE PRE-CONDITION IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE IF AN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN T HE PENDING PROCEEDING SHALL ABATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE ONE COMPOSITE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE TOTAL INCOME DIS CLOSED BY THE 4 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS NOT P ENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT AND HE HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE TIME LIMIT FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. ON 18.08.2011 FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DISTURB THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION FOR COMPLETING THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY NO MATERIAL W AS FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPE RATION IN RESPECT OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE ACCO RDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HENCE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THE ADDITION. 5 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS CAN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MAKE ADDITION IN THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N? WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAYS THAT IN CASE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN F ILED EARLIER ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE SAME SHALL STAND ABATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER INCLUDING T HE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SE ARCH. IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS NOT PENDING ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN FILED EARLIER THEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WILL N OT ABATE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N. 6. IN THE CASE BEFORE US EVEN THOUGH NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS EXPIRED. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS TERMINATED BY OPERATION OF LAW. IN OTHER WORDS ONCE THE TIME LI MIT FOR ISSUING 6 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT EXPIRED ON THE BASIS OF RETURN FILED EARLIER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS TERMINATED AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS PENDING ON THE DATE OF S EARCH. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS TERMINATED BY O PERATION OF LAW SINCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2) EXPIRED. THEREFORE THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT BY OP ERATION OF LAW ON EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) CANNOT BE REOPENED. HENCE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HENCE THE C IT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS ONLY TO SUP PORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT FOR SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THERE IS NO NEED FOR FILING ANY CROSS-OBJECTION. HENCE THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FI LED BY THE 7 I.T.A. NOS.989 TO 992/MDS/16 C.O. NOS.95 TO 98/MDS/16 ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE AND ALL THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI 4 /DATED THE 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017. KRI. + -056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. -.)* /RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-18 CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL)-I CHENNAI 5. 69 -0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.