G.Muralidhar (HUF) v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XIII, Chennai
[Citation -2020-LL-1014-62]

Citation 2020-LL-1014-62
Appellant Name G.Muralidhar (HUF)
Respondent Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XIII, Chennai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/10/2020
Assessment Year 2002-03
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags rectification order • remand order
Bot Summary: 4 of 2020 4.The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-7 hereinafter referred to the CIT(A), confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act dated 26.07.2010. The reason for dismissing the appeal as not maintainable is owing to the fact that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT has passed an earlier order dated 09.09.2011 in I.T.A.Nos. 4 of 2020 dated 26.07.2010 as confirmed by the CIT(A) by order dated 22.01.2015 is not maintainable. In our considered view, the observations made by the Tribunal is not wholly correct because the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 and after the same was confirmed by the CIT(A) on 11.06.2008, issued notice dated 01.07.2010 under Section 154 of the Act, subsequently passed a rectification order dated 26.07.2010 and at the relevant time, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 11.06.2008 was pending. The CIT(A) need not have dismissed the assessee's appeal, but could have taken note of the order passed by the ITAT dated 09.09.2011 and left the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue as per the directions of the ITAT. Therefore, the assessee having suffered an order at the hands of the CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015 had to necessarily file an appeal to the Tribunal. 4 of 2020 maintainable when the fact remains the appeal is maintainable and necessarily the Tribunal had to clarify that the Assessing Officer should take a decision in the matter as per the remand order dated 09.09.2011 without reference to the order under Section 154 dated 26.07.2010 and the order of the CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015. 6.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the assessee and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 09.09.2011 after due opportunity to the assessee.


TCA.No.4 of 2020 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 14.10.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.4 of 2020 G.Muralidhar (HUF) Pan: AACHG9948K ...Appellant -vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle XIII, Chennai 600034. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 29.01.2016 in ITA.No.1128/Mds/2015 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for assessment year 2002-03. For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondent : M/s.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J This appeal, filed by assessee under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) is directed against order dated 29.01.2016 in ITA.No.1128/Mds/2015 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for assessment year 2002-03. 2.The following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration: 1.Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing appeal as 'not maintainable under law'? 2.Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, status of Appellant-individual can be changed into Appellant-HUF under Section 154 of Act? 3.We have heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for appellant and M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent. 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 4.The Tribunal by impugned order dismissed appeal filed by assessee challenging order dated 22.01.2015 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 [hereinafter referred to CIT(A)], confirming order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 154 of Act dated 26.07.2010. reason for dismissing appeal as not maintainable is owing to fact that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] has passed earlier order dated 09.09.2011 in I.T.A.Nos.1955/Mds/2008 and 1987/Mds/2008 , by which Tribunal set aside order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 11.06.2008 and remanded matter to Assessing Officer with following observation and finding: 11.At time of hearing, assessee's counsel also pleaded that in fact status of assessee has been taken as individual at time of assessment, whereas as per rectification order passed by Assessing Officer, same has been changed to HUF vide order dated 26.07.2010. Therefore, assessment framed in status of individual should be quashed. whereas, ld. DR submitted that no doubt, status of assessee has been changed from individual to HUF, 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 yet, there is no adjudication in this regard by ld. CIT(A). Therefore, plea of assessee that assessment framed in status of individual should be quashed is not maintainable and at most, Tribunal can remit matter back to file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration of issue as 154 order is passed recently. 12.We have heard both sides on this point and find that as per order of Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 on 26.07.2010, status of assessee has been converted to HUF in place of individual, but this issue was not raised before ld. CIT(A) and in view of subsequent order passed by Assessing Officer, in our considered view, matter should go back to Assessing Officer for reconsideration of status. As such, orders of authorities below in this regard is set aside and restored back file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh issue after giving due opportunity to assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5.The Tribunal observed that because of earlier order, appeal filed by assessee challenging order under Section 154 of Act 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 dated 26.07.2010 as confirmed by CIT(A) by order dated 22.01.2015 is not maintainable. In our considered view, observations made by Tribunal is not wholly correct because Assessing Officer after passing assessment order dated 31.12.2007 and after same was confirmed by CIT(A) on 11.06.2008, issued notice dated 01.07.2010 under Section 154 of Act, subsequently passed rectification order dated 26.07.2010 and at relevant time, appeal filed by assessee before Tribunal against order of CIT(A) dated 11.06.2008 was pending. Since assessee was visited with order under Section 154 of Act, necessarily assessee had to take matter on appeal and accordingly went before CIT(A), who dismissed assessee's appeal on 22.01.2015. In fact, CIT(A) need not have dismissed assessee's appeal, but could have taken note of order passed by ITAT dated 09.09.2011 and left matter to Assessing Officer to decide issue as per directions of ITAT. Therefore, assessee having suffered order at hands of CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015 had to necessarily file appeal to Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable. Tribunal has committed error in coming to conclusion that appeal is not 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 maintainable when fact remains appeal is maintainable and necessarily Tribunal had to clarify that Assessing Officer should take decision in matter as per remand order dated 09.09.2011 without reference to order under Section 154 dated 26.07.2010 and order of CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015. If this observation had been done by Tribunal, present appeal itself could have been avoided. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with order passed by Tribunal. 6.Accordingly, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and substantial questions of law are decided in favour of assessee and matter is remanded to Assessing Officer to comply with direction issued by Tribunal in its order dated 09.09.2011 after due opportunity to assessee. No costs. 7.M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent/revenue submitted that this order should not be misunderstood by Assessing Officer as if this Court has taken decision on status of assessee, i.e. either individual or HUF. revenue need not 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 have any apprehension in this regard because order of remand passed by Tribunal is very clear and Assessing Officer has to decide afresh on status of assessee whether it is individual or HUF. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S, J.) 14.10.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.4 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. cse TCA.No.4 of 2020 14.10.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in G.Muralidhar (HUF) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XIII, Chennai
Report Error