MANSOOR ABDUL KADIR ROYKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT TAX WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

The revenue has raised the following issue as under: - “2. The present miscellaneous application is being filed in ITA. Nos. 486/Mum/2022 dated 10.10.2022 for AY. 2016-17 in the case of PMT Machines Limited Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(4).

3. The Hon’ble ITAT has remanded the assessment back to the file to the AO with the following directions- ‘3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated by the Ld. National Company law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, Court- III against the assessee company and by an order dated 22.10.2018 u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), Mr. Ram Ratan Kannongo was MA. Nos. 340 & 341/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 & AY. 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (RP). Later on, by order dated 03.06.2022 [I.A. No.1907 of 2021 in C.P. No.2469 of 2018, UCO Bank Vs. PMT Machines Ltd/assessee], the Ld. Tribunal (NCLT) has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Ms. Monica Shah with effect from 03.06.2022. In the light of the order of the NCLT in the assessee’s case (supra) which is binding on the department (Revenue) also, we are of the opinion that there is no point in keeping these appeals of assessee pending before this Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years before us and remand the relevant assessments back to the file of the AO to take appropriate action denovo in accordance to law after taking into consideration the Resolution Plan approved by the Ld. NCLT (supra)’.

It is seen that the Hon’ble ITAT has remanded the assessments back to the file of the AO for de-novo action in accordance with the law. However, the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT is not clear as to what this de-novo action should involve. It is not clear whether the Hon’ble ITAT has directed de-novo assessment or something else. Therefore, this AO is not able to give effect to the order of Hon’ble ITAT.

In view of the above, it is requested that the Hon’ble ITAT may issue clear and explicit directions in this case, so that necessary order giving effect can be passed by the AO”

From the application preferred before us, the prayer of the revenue is that the Tribunal may issue clear and explicit direction in respect of the impugned order (supra). In this regard, the power of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) is as under: - “254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it MA. Nos. 340 & 341/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 & AY. 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing] Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard : [ Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.] [(2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) [or sub-section (2)] of section 253 : [Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 253 , for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the said period of stay specified in that order: Provided further that where such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of stay as specified in the order of stay, the Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, extend MA. Nos. 340 & 341/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 & AY. 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd the period of stay, or pass an order of stay for a further period or periods as it thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally allowed and the period or periods so extended or allowed shall not, in any case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the period or periods of stay so extended or allowed: Provided also that if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso or the period or periods extended or allowed under the second proviso, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.”