9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Rukmini Enterprises, (v) M/s. Divya Moorthy Developers; (vi) Hi-tech Realtors Pvt Ltd, (vii) M/s. Metro Property Management Services Private Limited & (viii) Ruchika Developers respectively. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03 to 2006-07. I. ITA Nos.626 & 629/12 - AYS 2002-03 & 2006-07 - M/s. Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd: II. ITA Nos.633 & 634/12 - AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - M/s. Divyasree Properties Pvt. Ltd: III.ITA Nos.635 & 636/12 - AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07 - M/s. Coretech Realty Pvt. Ltd: IV.ITA Nos.695/12 - AY 2002-03 - M/s. Divya Moorthy Developers: V. ITA No.697/12 - AY. 2005-06 - M/s. Divyassree Holdings Pvt. Ltd: VI.ITA No.698/12 - AY 2005-06 - M/s. Hi-tech Realtors Pvt. Ltd: VII.ITA Nos.699 to 702/12 - AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 494 dt. 11.02.2010] and (iv) Smt Arathi B Raju [ITA Nos. 506 & 508 dt.11.2.2010] Aggrieved, those assessees have approached the earlier Bench of this Tribunal. After having considered the above named assessees' contentions, especially the issuance of a 'joint warrant' as well as the perusal of the relevant 'joint warrant', the earlier Bench, vide its order dated 6.1.2012, struck down the assessment orders dated 31.12.2008 for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 as not maintainable and also dismissed the revenue's appeals. In the light of the Tribunal's order dated 6.1.2012 in its own group of cases, the present assessees have approached the present CIT (A) with their appeals for adjudication. After taking into account the contentions put-forth by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court of India as reported in 154 ITR 172 in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd and others and it is pertinent to note the excerpts of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as under: 'In the hierarchical system of courts' which exists in our country, 'it is necessary for each lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers'. 'It is inevitable in a hierarchical system of courts that there are decisions of the supreme appellate tribunal which do not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary............But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and that last word, once spoken, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and Hon'ble ITAT, to maintain the judicial discipline as has also been laid down in 28 STC 483 [Karnataka High Court] & 158 ITR 148 [Karnataka High Court]. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in P J Kumar v. ACIT and jurisdictional ITAT in the assessee's own case, the cases of M/s Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd are annulled on the legal issue of the warrant being in joint names and not individual names as the impugned assessments hinges on the assessments framed u/s 153A of the I T Act in respect of the assessee's group which have been annulled and consequently the assessments so framed u/s 153C of the IT Act are consequential and, thus, does not stand the test of law. Therefore, no findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Kumar against the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on the issue of joint warrant. In conclusion, it was pleaded that in view of the retrospective effect to amendment to section 292CC of the Act, the issues raised by the Department require to be deliberated upon and decided in favour of the Revenue. 4.2. On the other hand, the learned AR supported the findings of the (i) the CIT (A), (ii) the Hon'ble earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the assessees' group of cases and (iii) the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.J. Kumar (supra). In view of the above, it was pleaded that the appeals preferred by the Revenue require to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax effect was less than Rs.10 lakhs, the appeal was to stand dismissed on the ground of monetary limit." The Hon'ble High Court held that instruction No.3 of 2011 is applicable to pending proceedings. 4.3.3. Incidentally, in the present appeals, as admitted by the Revenue [Source: AO's letter dt 30.4.2004 to DR - placed on record], the tax effect was not exceeded the monetary limits in any of the present assessees as per the Instruction No.3 of 2011 of the CBDT (supra). 4.3.4. Taking into account the above facts into consideration and also in conformity with the (i) Board's Instruction No.3 dated 9.2.2011; and (ii) in proposition of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the present appeals filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
