DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. LEGECY INVESTMENT TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2499/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2025AY 2009-10Bench: MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the mistake of passing the assessment order in the wrong name was an innocuous one, covered by Section 292B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the order of the First Appellate Authority was not based on a correct understanding of the facts.

What were the facts?

The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had granted relief to the assessee on a technical ground. The primary issue was that the assessment order was passed in the wrong name of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed in the wrong name of the assessee, despite a bona fide intent, can be invalidated on such a technical ground, especially when Section 292B of the Income Tax Act provides protection for innocuous mistakes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: MADHUMITA ROY

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.07.2025Pronounced: 29.07.2025

O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10, is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi dated 30.06.2023 in appeal No. 1327/23-24 arising out of the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

During the course of hearing today the assessee was called absent. It has been noted from records that the assessee has been continuously absenting from hearings in spite of several notices issued to it.

3.

This appeal is therefore adjudicated after hearing the Ld DR of the Revenue.

The Ld. Sr. DR informed that the principal issue in this case is regarding the assessment order having been passed in the wrong name of the assessee i.e. M/s Legacy Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (“LITC” in short) inspite of M/s Shalimar Corp. Ltd. The Ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has accorded relief on this technical ground even though the mistake is covered in favour of Revenue qua provision of Section 292B of the Act. The Ld. DR argued that after the merger of LITC with M/s Shalimar Corp. Ltd., the case records were transferred to AO of M/s Shalimar Corp. Ltd. being Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai for passing assessment order. However, by an inadvertent mistake, the assessment order was passed in the name of LITC and not M/s Shalimar Corp. Ltd. The Ld. DR argued that Section 292B of the Act supports the case of the Revenue inasmuch as where the intent is bona fide, small technical mistake accruing in any notice/assessment/ any other proceedings, shall not invalidatethe assessment orders only on account of such innocuous mistake. The Ld. DR argued that the intent and purpose of the proceedings under the Act and consequential orders prevails over any such inadvertent, bona fide mistakes.

4.

We have noted that the case of the Revenue is covered by the protection provided u/s 292B. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority is not based upon any correct understanding of the facts of the case. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →