The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.12.2017 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam &The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu T.C.A.No.598 of 2017&C.M.P.No.12968 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant Vs. M/s. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.,11/6, Seethammal Road, Alwarpet,Chennai-600 018. Now at Chennai Metro DepotAdministrative Building, P.H.Road,(Near Koyambedu Metro Station),Chennai – 600 107.PAN : ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order, dated 05.08.2016 passed in S.A. No174/mds/2016 in I.T.A.No. 2231/MDS/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, forthe assessment year 2011-12 against the proceedings dated09.03.2016 in C.No 218/3)Pr.CIT-1/263-2015-2016 of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai against the assessment orderpassed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai/Assessment Officer dated 06.03.2014 in PAN NoAADCC2233K. For Appellant: Mr. T.Ravikumar For Respondent :Mr. M.P.Senthil KumarJUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.,) Heard Mr. T.Ravikumar, the learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant, and Mr. M.P.Senthil Kumar, thelearned counsel for the respondent/assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:- “I). Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the Tribunal was right in staying theoperation of the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act ? II) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byholding that the CIT has no power to pass orderunder Section 263 especially when the appeal againstthe assessment order is pending before the Tribunaleven though the subject matter of order passed undersection 263 was not the same or contested before anyof the Appellate Authority and therefore it was inviolation of Explanation (1) to (c) to Section 263(1) and is contrary to the Apex Court decision inthe case of Jayakumar B Patel 236 ITR 469 and ShriArbuda Mills Ltd., reported in 231 ITR 50? III) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunalis proper by staying the order passed under Section263 by the Commissioner of Income tax especiallywhen the jurisdictional High Court in the case ofSara Enterprises reported in 224 ITR 169 (Mad) onidentical circumstances upheld the action of thedepartment? IV) Whether the reasons and finding of theTribunal is proper by grating the stay of theoperation of the order passed u/s. 263 preventingthe assessing officer from making enquiry andpassing consequential assessment orders, especially,when as per Explanation (1)(ii) to section 153excludes only the period during the assessmentproceeding is stayed by an order or injunction ofany Court and the Tribunal not being a Court, lackinherent jurisdiction? 3. It may not be necessary for us to go into the factualand legal issue raised in this Appeal, as the impugned orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench,Chennai, (in short, 'Tribunal') is only an order on anapplication for stay, and the stay was restricted to, for aperiod of six months from the date of the order, i.e.,05.08.2016, till the disposal of the Appeal, whichever isearlier. The Appeals, in I.T.A.No.2230, 2231and 2232/Mds/2016,have been disposed of by a common order, dated 23.03.2017. As against the said order, Revenue has preferred |Tax Case Appealin T.C.A.No.745 of 2017. 3. It may not be necessary for us to go into the factualand legal issue raised in this Appeal, as the impugned orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench,Chennai, (in short, 'Tribunal') is only an order on anapplication for stay, and the stay was restricted to, for aperiod of six months from the date of the order, i.e.,05.08.2016, till the disposal of the Appeal, whichever isearlier. The Appeals, in I.T.A.No.2230, 2231and 2232/Mds/2016,have been disposed of by a common order, dated 23.03.2017. As against the said order, Revenue has preferred |Tax Case Appealin T.C.A.No.745 of 2017. 4.Thus, in our view, the present Appeal filed by theRevenue has become infructuous, and accordingly, the same isclosed, however, making it clear that all the issues, both thefactual and legal issues raised by the Revenue in this Appealcan be canvassed in T.C.A. No.745 of 2017. No costs.Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrarmsm/sdTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ayakar Bhavan, 121 M.G. Road, Chennai 34.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ayakar Bhavan, 121 MG Road, Chennai 34.+1 CC to M/s.T. Ravikannan, Advocate sr 88960.+1 CC to M/s. G. Baskaran, Advocate sr 88057.T.C.A.No.598 of 2017GMI(CO)SP(22/01/2018)