MRS. USHA DEVI AGARWALLA,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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 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 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.