OCL IRON & STEEL LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1673/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 October 2022AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment order was valid. The CIT(A) had reasoned that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was automatically generated and the PAN was under the jurisdiction of another officer at the time.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the validity of the assessment order. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the Revenue's representative supported the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the assessment order, specifically concerning the jurisdiction and timing of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 25.10.2022Pronounced: 25.10.2022

Per Kul Bharat, Judicial Member:

This appeal by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 29.01.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2012- 13.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the assessment order against the facts off the case and the applicable law. 2. the appellant seeks Honourable Tribunal’s indulgence to add, alter, modify and ground of appeal.”

3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of the Assessment Order.

2 OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. 4. None attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. The notices issued by the Registry are not returned by the Postal Authority. Therefore, it is presumed that the notice has been duly served upon the assessee. From the record, it is seen that since 16.02.2021 no one has been attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee.

The ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no infirmity of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in respect of upholding the validity of assessment.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record.

We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given finding of fact by observing as under:

“4.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submissions, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant are discussed as under:-

(i) It is submitted by the appellant that ACIT, Rourkela has no jurisdiction to issue notice on 07.8.2013. In this regard, I have perused the assessment record and discussed with the A.O., who was also present in the appellate proceedings. The A.O. was also called alongwith case record to explain the reason for issuing notice.

(ii) The present A.O. received the assessment record on transfer in the month of August, 2014 and therefore, it is mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) within a period of 6 month from the end of the F.Y., in which return of income is filed i.e. 30.9.2013.

3 OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. (iii) Further, the PAN was also not transferred to the present A.O. erstwhile CC-14, after order u/s 127, till September, 2013.

(iv) Because of these peculiar facts and circumstances, it was mandatory to issue a notice u/s 143(2), since the notice dated 07.8.2013 was generated automatically under CASS and at that time the PAN was owned by ACIT, Rourkela.

In view of the above facts, the arguments of the appellant are not acceptable and accordingly dismissed.

Accordingly, ground no. 1, is dismissed.”

The above finding of fact of ld. CIT(A) has not been rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25/10/2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →