You are on page 1of 5
Herat aici after, sy earedts, deats IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ALAS, where, ean BaET TS at sqft war Ua, Car Bars Hare BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ‘SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER a after a7 S.P. No.70/Chny/2019 (in 1.T.(TP).No.28/Chny/2019) fauizor at / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mis Young Buhmwoo India Co. Pvt Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of K5 Phase Il, SIPCOT Industrial Park, v. Income Tax, Mambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur, Corporate Circle - 3(2), Kancheepuram Dist. 631 560. Chennai - 600 034. Tamilnadu. PAN: AAACY 2562 N (a12ie5/Petitioner) (aea2if/Respondent) urie #1 Hx a /Petitioner by Sh. K. Ravi, Advocate yeaet Ar 3ix B/Respondent by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Addl.CIT ‘yaars # arfra/Date of Hearing 15.03.2019 ‘arse tr argraiDate of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 wg /ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present Stay Petition praying for stay of recovery of outstanding amount for assessment year 2012- 13. 2 SP. No.70/Chny/19 2. Shri K. Ravi, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that this is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, according to the Ld. counsel, this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the DRP. When this Tribunal remitted the matter to the file of the DRP, the DRP observed that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act, whereby this Tribunal would set aside the assessment order directly to the file of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The DRP, according to the Ld. counsel, has also observed that this Tribunal has no power to issue direction in a case where it was set aside by this Tribunal directly to the DRP. According to the Ld. counsel, if the order of this Tribunal is wrong and it has no power to remit the matter back to the file of the DRP, the Department or the DRP ought to have approached this Tribunal by way of Miscellaneous Petition. According to the Ld. counsel, when there was an order by a judicial body like ITAT, it was not fair for the DRP or any of the lower authorities to observe that the direction issued by this Tribunal wrong. If they feel aggrieved, it is always open to the authorities below including DRP to take up the matter before the appellate forum as per the law. Atleast, they could have taken up the before this Tribunal by way of llaneous Petition. Having chosen not to take up the legal remedy, according to the Ld. counsel, the DRP is not justified in / making observation that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act .P. No.70/Chny/19 to set aside the matter to the file of the DRP. Even if there is no such a provision, according to the Ld counsel, the DRP is bound to follow the direction of this Tribunal until it is reversed by the higher forum. 3 We heard Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld Departmental Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., the DRP, after observing as stated by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, has also discussed the matter on merit. Therefore, according to the Ld DR., there is no prima facie case for grant of stay. 4. Having heard the Ld.counsel for the assessee and the Ld. D.R,, this Tribunal finds that in the earlier occasion, the matter was remitted back to the DRP by this Tribunal. No doubt, the appeal before this Tribunal is against the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, technically, this Tribunal has to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with further direction to refer the matter to the TPO and DRP as per the provisions of law. The question arises for consideration is when a judicial body like ITAT remits the matter back to DRP, een if there is no provision in the Income-tax Act as claimed by the DRP itself, can the DRP disobey the direction issued by this