Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT. JM:
1. This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, dated 23.03.2021, passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.
That the Learned Pr. Cit just incorporated the reply submitted by us and passed order u/s 263 without giving any reason for rejection of our written submissions and just repeated the reasons for reopening mentioned in notice for hearing.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT cancelling the assessment order passed by the A.O. is untenable in the absence of order of the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that issue raised by him in notice under Section 263 was before the A.O in proceedings under Section 143(3) and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the proceeding under Section 263 is not permissible and cannot be used for substituting opinion of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the settled position of law that where the two views are possible and the Assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in invoking revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act despite the fact that even after thorough examination, no specific findings have been given on the issue how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the issues raised by the him were before the AO in proceedings under Section 143(3) and was assessed after application of mind as per record available with him a such the Page | 2
same cannot be the matter for reassessment under Section 263 of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. No one attended the proceedings at the time of hearing. Even on the last date of hearing also, no one had attended the proceedings. The case was adjourned for today i.e. 15.11.2022. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being adjudicated on the basis of material available on record.
3. At the outset, Ld.CIT DR pointed out that the present appeal is not maintainable as the assessee failed to verify the contents of the verification of clause of Form No.36.
We have heard Ld.CIT DR and perused the material available on record. We find merit into the contention of Ld.CIT DR. We find that the present appeal is defective and the assessee failed to verify the contents of Form No.36 in verification of clause of Form No.36 as the same is blank. For the sake of clarity, the relevant page of Form No.36 is reproduced below:-
M/s. Flora International vs PCIT, Rohtak 17, Sector-25, HUDA, Part-2, Haryana-132103. PAN-AACFF1305R (Appellant) (Respondent) FLORA INTERNATIONAL Name/designation of the Appellant (as applicable) PAN (if available) AACFF1305R TAN (if available) N.A. Complete address for sending notices 17,SECTOR-25; HUDA, PART-2, PANIPAT State Haryana Pin Code 132103 Phone No. with STD code/Mobile No. 9215055655 Sushilgargca1@gmail.com Email Address Name/designation of the Respondent (as PCIT, ROhtak applicable) PAN (If available) N.A. TAN(if available) N.A. Complete address for sending notices PCIT, ROhtak State Haryana Pin Code 132103 Phone No. with STD code/mobile No. N.A Email Address N.A.
1. Assessment year in connection with which 2016-17 the appeal is preferred Rs. 5,72,6677- 2. Total Income declared by the assessee for the assessment year referred to in item 1 3. Details of the order appealed against a. Section and sub-section under which the 263 order is passed b. Date of order 23.03.2021 c. Date of service or communication of the 23.03.2021 order 4. Income tax Authority passing the order PCIT, Rohtak appealed against 5. The State and District in which the Haryana Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is located 6. Section and sub-section under which the 263 original order is passed 7. If appeal relates to any assessment a. Total income as computed by the N.A Assessing Office of the assessment year referred to in item 1 N.A b. Total amount of additions or N.A. disallowances made in the assessment c. Amount disputed in appeal 8. If appeal relates to any penalty: a. Total amount of penalty imposed as per N.A. order b. Amount of penalty disputed in appeal N.A.
If appeal related to any other matter: 10. Ground of appeal
Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal (see note below) 1. 2.
3. Total tax effect (see note below)
11. Whether there is any delay in filing of No appeal (if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay)
12. Details of Appeal Fees paid BSR Code Date of payment Sl.No. Amount 6910333 19.05.2021 10410 500/-
Sd/- Sd/- (Authorized Representative, if any) (Appellant) Name: Name: Designation: Designation:
In view of the above, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is . defective hence, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeal if the defect is removed/rectified. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th November, 2022.