MRS. USHA DEVI AGARWALLA,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT CUTTACK, CUTTACK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M- Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack Pr. CIT, Cuttack 17, 17, Civil Civil Township, Township, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.ABIPA 0285A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, AR B.R.Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14/0 02/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. ainst the order of the ld Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 28.4.2020 28.4.2020 in Appeal No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020 ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/102699194(1) for the assessment year the assessment year 2015-16.
Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K,Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. M.K,Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022 condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022 condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022. In the petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to COVID due to COVID-19 pandemic. For this, reliance was preferred on the eliance was preferred on the
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 arising out of Suo moto writ petition (Civil) No.3/2020 regarding extension of limitation period for filing the appeal. Ld SR DR did not have any objection for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 718 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed on 29.12.2017 u/s.143(3) of the Act. It was the submission that the issues had been considered in depth by the Assessing Officer when he passed the assessment order. He submitted that the ld Pr. CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act and has directed the AO to redo the assessment in respect of certain purchases shown by the assessee from MCL whereas MCL had confirmed in a reply to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act that they have not made any sales to the assessee. It was the further submission that the accounts of MCL might be erroneous insofar as the assessee has invoices in respect of purchases from MCL. It was the further submission that even the unsecured loans have not been examined. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 is liable to be quashed insofar as all the issues have been examined by the AO.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessment order is bald and non-speaking order. There is no examination on the issues by the AO. There was a reply to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act that the MCL has intimated that there is no transaction was made with the assessee during P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16
the relevant assessment year. However, the assessee has produced an invoice of the MCL. The AO has not examined this issue. The Assessing officer in the assessment order does not talk of any verification of the unsecured loans. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 is liable to be upheld. It was the further submission that the consequential order in pursuance to the order passed u/s.263 has already been passed and the assessee is in appeal before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that no prejudice is caused to the assessee on account of the order passed u/s.263 insofar as the alternate remedy is effectively available before the ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. Without going into the merits in the present case, as our findings could lead to inference being drawn on the merits, especially when the issues are in appeal before the ld CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee insofar as alternate remedy in the form of appeal before the ld CIT(A) against the consequential order passed u/s.143(3)/263 is pending before the ld CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/02/2023.
Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14/02/2023
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16
B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M-17, Civil Township, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
