TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE. LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
25.01.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23,
New Delhi.
The basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of
assessee’s appeal in limine on the ground of delay.
Briefly the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are, the
assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in
ITA No.2085/Del/2018 AY: 2013-14
Singapore and tax resident of Singapore. A draft assessment order
in case of the assessee was framed on 29.02.2016. Copy of the
draft assessment order was served on the assessee on
11.03.2016. Since, the assessee did not file any objections against
the draft assessment order within the stipulated period of 30
days, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on
26.04.2016. Against the final assessment order so passed, the
assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner
(Appeals) on 03.09.2016. While taking up the appeal for hearing,
learned Commissioner (Appeals), on verifying the memorandum of
appeal in From 35, noticed that the assessee has mentioned the
date of service of the assessment order/notice of demand as
04.08.2016. As observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals),
finding abnormality in the date of receipt shown by the assessee,
he made an inquiry with the Assessing Officer and vide letter
dated 24.11.2017, the Assessing Officer communicated that as
per speed post tracking through which the final assessment order
was sent to the assessee, it was found that the order was served
at the Singapore office of the assessee on 16.05.2016. On the
basis of the aforesaid facts, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was
of the view that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 2 | P a g e
ITA No.2085/Del/2018 AY: 2013-14
limitation. Accordingly, he called upon the assessee to explain, as
to why the appeal belatedly filed should not be dismissed.
Though, before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee
insisted that the appeal was filed in time, however, learned
Commissioner (Appeals) remained unconvinced and ultimately
dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation.
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee
submitted that the final assessment order was dispatched to a
wrong address which is not the address as per the return of
income filed by the assessee. He submitted, for this reason, the
assessee did not receive the assessment order. Subsequently,
after obtaining a certified copy, the assessee filed the appeal
within time. He submitted, before the first appellate authority, the
assessee had furnished documentary evidences to demonstrate
that the assessee had shifted its office to a new address. He
submitted, since, the assessee did not receive a copy of the
assessment order, he filed the appeal after obtaining a certified
copy of the said order. Thus, he submitted, the appeal was filed
within the period of limitation. Therefore, he made a submission
for restoring the matter back to the first appellate authority for
deciding on merits. 3 | P a g e
ITA No.2085/Del/2018 AY: 2013-14
Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the
observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals).
We have considered rival submissions and perused the
materials on record. Undisputedly, learned Commissioner
(Appeals) has disbelieved assessee’s claim that the assessment
order was served on 04.08.2016. Based on the report of the
Assessing Officer that as per speed post tracking the assessment
order was served at the office of the assessee at Singapore on
16.05.2016, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed
assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation. From the respective
orders of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner
(Appeals), it is observed that the assessment order was sent to the
following address:
“1 Jalan Kilang Timor #01-09, Pacific Centre, Singapore- 159303 7. Whereas, in the return of income filed for the impugned
assessment year, the assessee had shown the following address:
“B Cross Street, #22-00, PWC Building, Singapore” 8. In fact, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee
had furnished various other documentary evidences to
demonstrate that the change of address was duly notified to the 4 | P a g e
ITA No.2085/Del/2018 AY: 2013-14
Assessing Officer and other departmental authorities much prior
to the passing of the final assessment order. Thus, it is borne out
from record that the assessment order, having been sent to a
wrong address was not served on the assessee. Thus, assessee’s
contention that it filed the appeal after obtaining a certified copy
of the assessment order, is acceptable. In any case of the matter,
no prejudice is going to be caused to the Revenue if assessee’s
appeal is decided on merits.
In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on
merits, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned
Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for
deciding de novo, on merits, after due and reasonable opportunity
of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical
purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2022
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th December, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 5 | P a g e
ITA No.2085/Del/2018 AY: 2013-14
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
6 | P a g e
