SHRI RAVI RAMAKRISHNAN,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 646/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the DRP to decide the assessee's rectification application expeditiously. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes pending the DRP's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order. The assessee had also filed a rectification application before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding the DRP's directions.

What were the issues?

Whether the DRP properly considered the assessee's submissions and provided an opportunity of being heard. Whether the DRP's directions were valid and if rectification was warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 144C(5),Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 49(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I ”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 26/09/2023Pronounced: 26/09/2023

ORDER आदेश आदेश PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 10/01/2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act], for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in appeal: “ The following grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one another:

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) / Directions passed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') under (A.Y. 2014-15) section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act1) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts on account of:

(i) The Hon'ble DRP has erred in completely ignoring and not considering the Appellants submissions made via email dated 7 December 2022, 10 December 2022, and 13 December 2022. (ii) The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the variation proposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.45,62,270 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as income from other sources and has also erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act for years prior to AY 2014-15.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in completely ignoring and not considering the submissions made via email dated 13 December, 2022 wherein the Appellant had submitted the write up for granting corresponding relief in capital gains computation as per section 49(4) of the Act along with relevant case laws.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant has filed a rectification application dated 26 December 2022 before the Hon'ble DRP on account of Appellants submissions not being considered in the DRP Directions and not providing opportunity of being heard.

5.

The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to withdraw, to modify and / or to substitute any or all the foregoing grounds of appeal

and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

3. Ms. Anushree Gupta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessee has filed an application before the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) under Rule 13 of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 for rectification of the Directions on 23/12/2022. If the aforesaid application is allowed, the present appeal of the assessee would become infructuous. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee furnished copy of the said application and prayed that the DRP may be directed to decide rectification application of the assessee.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by both side. The assessee has placed on record copy of application dated 23/12/2022 filed under Rule 13 of (A.Y. 2014-15) Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 for rectification of DRP directions. We deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal with a direction to the DRP to decide the aforesaid application, in accordance with law. The DRP shall decide the said application expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 26th day of September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →