9X MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF

ITA 3191/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: the Tribunal without preferring any appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the Assessee were, therefore, not maintainable. Responding to the aforesaid submissions the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal since the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act made reference to filing appeal before the Tribunal. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was further sub4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee filed appeals for Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 directly with the ITAT against assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254, without first appealing to the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the demand notice referenced filing an appeal with the Tribunal.

Held

The Tribunal ruled that appeals against assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 lie with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A, and not directly with the ITAT. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the CIT(A), with a directive for the CIT(A) to consider condonation of delay.

Key Issues

Whether appeals against Assessment Orders under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 are maintainable directly before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, bypassing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Sections Cited

143(3), 254, 156, 246A, 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 which were heard together and are being disposed of by way of a common order. pertains to Assessment Year 2011-2012 and Assessment Year 2012-2013.

2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the Assessee has challenged the Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Officer ITA No.3190&3191/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act directly in appeal before the Tribunal without preferring any appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the Assessee were, therefore, not maintainable. Responding to the aforesaid submissions the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal since the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act made reference to filing appeal before the Tribunal. Without, prejudice to the aforesaid, it was further submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative of the Assessee that in case the present appeals were held to be not maintainable, the appeal fee of INR.10,000/- paid in respect of each of the appeal be refunded to the Assessee.

On perusal of the record we find that in the memorandum of appeal in Form 36 for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, while ‘section/sub-section under which appeal has been filed’ has been mentioned as Section 250 of the Act, in the details of order appealed against the date of the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act has been mentioned. Thus, by way of present appeal the Assessee has impugned the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 254 of the Act and the appeal against the same lies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in terms of Section 246A of the Act and not before this Tribunal. Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Act is appealable before this Tribunal. However, in the present case the orders impugned by way of and are the Assessment Orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, and not the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of Assessment Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 the Act. The Assessee has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal by misplacing reliance upon the contents of Demand Notice issued under Section 156 of the Act. As regards, the contention of the Assessee seeking refund of appeal fee paid for the institution of the appeal is concerned, we find that no factual or legal basis has been placed before us in support of the same. The reference to the extract of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Office Manual is of no aid to the Assessee since the same deals with a case of refund of (a) fee paid twice or (b) excess fee paid or (c) fee paid in respect of appeal not actually filed. Clearly, that is not the case in the appeals before under consideration. In view of the aforesaid, both the appeal preferred by the Assessee are dismissed. The Assessee would have such liberty, as available the provisions of the Act, to challenge the Assessment Order in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In case the Assessee moves application seeking condonation of delay, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall adjudicate the same after taking into consideration the time spent by the Assessee in pursuing the present appeals before this Tribunal which has been held by us to be wrong forum.