PRANAV CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETHAssessment Year : 2009-10
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24-
07-2025 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi (in short „NFAC‟)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appels) {in short „Ld.
Commissioner‟} u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for the AY. 2009-10. 2. At the outset, Shri Dharan Gandhi, Ld. Advocate/Counsel for the Assessee,drew our attention to the impugned order, which is under challenge,
2
prima facie appears to has been passed, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of any other case, but not related to the Assessee‟s case. Further, the order impugned seems to be a non-speaking order, which has been passed without giving any reasoning or explanation, as to what happened to the amounts of money paid under protest earlier and, therefore, as per the grounds B of appeal, the Assessee has requested to direct the Ld. Commissioner for passing a speaking order, mentioning the reasons, findings and the basis for the decision, as the impugned order is ambiguous and un-clear.
Further, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee drew our attention to the rectification order dt. 07-04-2025passed by the AO u/s.154 of the Act, whereby the AO by considering the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), dt. 16-01-2024, whereby as claimed, the resolution plan, has been approved, rectified the assessment order dt. 10-03-2015 mainly on the reason that mistake being apparent from record.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assesseealso relied on two judgments of the Hon‟ble juri ictional High Court in the cases of - Alok Industries Ltd., vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 285 (Bombay) and Deegee Cotsyn Private Limited and Anr. Vs. DCIT, Writ Petition (L) No. 14530 of 2023, dt. 07-05-2024 and claimed that in view of the order of the NCLT, the proceedings carried out against the Assessee would not survive. However, on being asked, specifically, the Assessee has not produced any copy of the order of the NCLT, referred to above.
On the contrary the Ld. DR claimed that mistake in the impugned order appears to be inadvertent and/or because of oversight or technical glitch. Even otherwise, passing the NCLT order is subsequent development i.e. after passing the original assessment order and filing of appeal challenging the same and therefore there was no mistake apparent from record, which somehow rectified by the AO, which requires verification/ scrutiny. Even otherwise, the Assessee failed to bring on record the NCLT order referred to above and therefore without
3
examining the same by the Ld. Commissioner, cognizance of the same may not be taken. And thus, the Ld. Commissioner may be given an opportunity to pass a reasoned and speaking order, based on the facts and circumstances and issues involved in the Assessee‟s case.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We are in consonance with the contentions raised by the Assessee specific to the effect that the impugned order is not based on the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in the case of the Assessee. We further observe that this mistake prima facie appears to be inadvertent mistake occurred due to oversight or otherwise, but it is a fact that adjudication of the assessment order10.03.2015 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, was sub-judice before the Ld. Commissioner, who somehow on the reasons as observed by us above, failed to adjudicate the same and against the order of the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee is in appeal before this Court.
We further observe that the Assessee vide Ground no. B has specifically raised the issue or made the request for directing the Ld. Commissioner for passing the speaking order, in the context of the facts/issues involved in the Assessee‟s case.
We further observe that the Hon‟ble High Court by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in those particular cases as referred to by the Assessee, has taken cognizance and disposed-of the particular matters. However as observed above the Assessee on being asked, specifically, has not produced any copy of the NCLT order dated 16-01-2024, referred to above and therefore we are not having the benefit of the order passed by the NCLT and which is otherwise subsequent development after passing the Assessment Order and challenging the same by filing an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the Assessee that it has placed copy of such order before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, on the aforesaid reasons, we at this stage, deem it appropriate not to delve into the merits of that particular order by NCLT.
4
9. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are accepting the Ground B raised by the Assessee specifically and thus direct the Ld. Commissioner to pass a speaking order based on the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee and considering the subsequent events/development occurred, after filing of appeal before him as well, preferably within six months from to-day.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-12-2025. [Bijayananda Pruseth] [Narender Kumar Choudhry] Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mumbai,
Dated: 23-12-2025
TNMM
Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asst.