Acg Associated Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No. 1239/Mum/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the income in question has been correctly offered to tax by the assessee for the year in which it properly belongs, its assessability in the hands of the right person for the right year is not affected by its having been assessed in the hands of another person or for a different year, and the assessee's appeal against the same income is therefore rendered infructuous. The Tribunal holds that delay in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority may be condoned where the delay arises from the pendency of proceedings concerning the same income in another assessee's hands, and the income has been assessed in accordance with law in the right person for the right year, so that no prejudice or inordinate culpability attaches to the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद य एवं अ मत श ु ला, या यक सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1239/Mum/2012 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2004-05) ACG Associated Capsules P.Ltd. Dy. CIT, CC-42, , 1001, Dalamal House, 10th Floor, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400021, थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. AAACA4769K (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : (!"यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ क# ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Manish V. Shah
!"यथ क# ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. S. Padmaja
सनु वाई क# तार(ख / : 24.02.2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क# तार(ख / : 13.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 19.12.2011, dismissing the Assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2004-05 vide order dated 30.12.2009.
2. At the very outset, the learned Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee's counsel, would submit that the assessee is not interested to prosecute its appeal and, accordingly, pressed for its withdrawal. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on 2 ITA No. 1239/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) ACG Associated Capsules P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
being required by the Bench to state his objections, if any, to the proposed withdrawal aforesaid, would submit that the same should not in any case operate to prejudice the Revenue in any manner. In fact, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable in-as-much as it is time barred by 330 days, which delay has not been condoned by him. The ld. AR would, upon this, submit that the facts of the case are that the assessee is the demerged company upon demerger of Universal Capsules Pvt. Ltd. (later named as ACG Arts & Properties Pvt. Ltd.) w.e.f. 31.03.2003. Its' income of Rs. 62,21,089/- was originally offered to tax. However, as the said income was brought to tax by the Revenue in demerged company for the same year, i.e., AY 2004-05, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA), claiming that the same should not, therefore, be included in its total income for the year. The demerged company being successful in its' appeal before the first appellate authority, the instant appeal becomes infructuous. The same would also explain the reason for the delay, which in fact has been narrated in the grounds of appeal assumed by the assessee before the appellate tribunal.
3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
The statement of facts before the first appellate authority brings the relevant facts, in full, i.e., along with the relevant figures, of the case, which are in conformity with that as explained by the ld. AR before us. The income is only to be assessed in the hands of the right person and for the right year. It being assessed in the hands of another, or for a different year, would not impact its' assessability in the hands of the right person for the right year. The income has correctly been offered to tax by the assessee for the current year in-as-much as the demerger is w.e.f. 31.03.2003, i.e., prior to the commencement of the current previous year on 01.04.2003.
We have under the circumstances no hesitation in, firstly, condoning the otherwise inordinate delay of 330 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and, secondly, in allowing the assessee's plea for withdrawal of its instant appeal; its' income having only been assessed in accordance with law. This, as it would be appears to us, is also the reason for the deletion of the impugned income in the hands of the demerged 3 ITA No. 1239/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) ACG Associated Capsules P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
company, namely ACG Arts & Properties Pvt. Ltd., i.e., in the appellate proceedings. We decide accordingly.
4. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2015 Sd/- Sd/-
(Amit Shukla) (Sanjay Arora) या यक सद य / Judicial Member लेखा सद य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; -दनांक Dated : 13.03.2015 व. न.स./ S.K. PS.
आदे श क ! त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. !"यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आय ु त / CIT - concerned
5. .वभागीय ! त न1ध, आयकर अपील(य अ1धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड4 फाईल / Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free