9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1650/Mds/2015 & C.O. No. 90/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) And V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) For the Department : A. V. Sreekanth, JCIT For the Assessee : S. Nagarajan, CA ORDER This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated 23.3.2015, for assessment year 2006-07. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of wheat flour milling and windmill power generation. The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y 2006-07 on 25.11.2006 admitting a total income of ₹ 82,23,304/-. Processing u/s 143(1) was completed on 25.12.2007. During the year, assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80lA(4) of ₹ 18,08,000/- from business of power generation from NEPC windmill. The assessee also owned four other windmills. The Assessing Officer has taken the profit losses of all the windmills by treating all the windmills as a single undertaking for claiming deduction u/s 80lA and has stated that as there will not be any surplus profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has stated that there has been no failure on its part and the notice was issued after a period of 4 years. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections of the assessee vide order passed on 4.2.2014. The assessee has also stated before the Assessing Officer that the enhancement proposal for ₹ 18,08,000 for AY.2006-07 before the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings, on the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) was rejected by the CIT(A)(C)-II, Chennai vide common order dated ITA No.364 to 367/13-14 dated 31.10.2013 for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Chennai in the case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd (ITA No. 1672/Mds/08). The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s contention stating that the Department has preferred further appeal against the said decision as well as against the decision of the CIT (A) in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 (on the proposal for enhancement of assessment). Further, it is stated by the Assessing Officer that the proceedings under reassessment and that of the appeal proceedings against the order under section 143(3) are parallel proceedings and they do not merge. Hence, the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al so mer ges with the decis i o n of m y l d . predecesso r CIT(A)(C)-II, Chennai vide his or de r in ITA NO .364 to 367/13-14 dated 3 1 . 1 0 . 2013 for AYs 06-07 to 09-10 who has given r elief t o the appellant for the present assessment year on the orde r passed by the A O u/s 1 4 3(3) . 5. Against the deletion of addition, the Revenue is in appeal before us. In the cross objection, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment. 6. As the issue regarding reopening of assessment goes to the root of the matter, first we take up the cross objection by the assessee. 7. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2008, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the Addl. CIT sought enhancement of assessment vide his request dated 10.8.2011 which reads as follows: Kindly refer to the above. 2. A letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle I(3), Chennai in No. Co.Cir-I(3)/2011-12 dated 03.08.2011 in the case of M/s Century Flour Mills Ltd, Chennai PAN AAACC 1223 Capital for the assessment years 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating this issue in ITA No. 366/13-14 I have already held that I did not find the proposal of enhancement by the AO to be acceptable in view of the fact that the issue raised by the AO is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the jurisdictional ITAT Bench in the case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra). For the detailed reasons discussed in para 7.2 above, in the present assessment year also the proposal of the AO to enhance the income of the appellant on this count is not accepted. 9. On rejection of the enhancement by the CIT(A) on the above issue, the Assessing Officer recorded the same as reason for reopening of assessment which was furnished to the assessee vide letter dated 5.4.2013. The contention of the ld. AR before us is that what cannot be done directly, the same thing cannot be done indirectly also. 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the reopening is an independent issue and it cannot be compared with enhancement of income by the CIT(A). 11. We heard both parties and perused the material on record. In this case, original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17.12.2008. Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
