NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1093/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2022AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC had made a gross mistake by deciding on incorrect issues. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remitted the case back to the NFAC to decide the appeal afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was decided by copying and pasting an earlier order, addressing issues different from those raised by the assessee. The NFAC's order was based on an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, but the NFAC adjudicated on grounds from a different appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in deciding an appeal based on grounds not raised by the assessee and by using a 'cut and paste' method from a previous order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri, Shri Chetan M. Kacha, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/
For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.03.2022, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AY 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC) erred in passing the order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 250 purportedly disposing appeal bearing no. CIT (A) 13, Mumbai / 10393/2019-20 filed on 24.02.2020. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has wrongly adjudicated and decided on the issues which were not forming ground of appeal s raised by the appellant company in appeal bearing no. CITA 13, Mumbai /10393/2019-20 filed on 24.02.2020. 1.2 The order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC disposing of the appeal bearing no. CIT(A) 13, Mumbai /10393/2019-20 filed on 24.02.2020 being bad in law be treated as non-est as the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated grounds of appeal raised in appeal bearing no CIT(A) 13, Mumbai / 10267/2017-18 filed on 25.01.2018 against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have adjudicated and allowed the following grounds of appeal raised in appeal bearing no. CIT(A) 13, Mumbai / 10393/2019-20 filed on 24.02.2020 against order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263of the Act dated 30.01.2020. 2.1.1 The Ld. C1T(A), NFAC erred in not allowing the appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 170 crores being statutory contribution to National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Core settlement Guarantee Fund and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. 2.1.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not granting credit for Tax Deducted at Source to the extent of Rs. 5,31,13,729/- claimed by the appellant company which is wrong and contrary the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made there under. 2.1.3 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in charging interest of Rs. 26,35,13,952/- u/s. 234B of the Act which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rules made there under.

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. First Appellate Authority has erroneously decided the appeal by cut and paste of earlier order passed u/s 143(3), whereas this appeal was filed against the assessment order giving effect to order u/s 263 passed u/s 143(3) /263, wherein the issue relates to assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs. 117 crores being statutory contribution to ‘Core Settlement Guarantee Fund’, not granting of TDS to the extent of Rs. 5,31,13,729/- and charging of interest u/s 234B. Thus, the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority therefore should be directed to National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. decide the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. DR admitted that there is a gross mistake of Ld. First Appellate Authority, wherein he has decided the different issue and not the issue on which appeal was filed. Thus, he submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority.

4.

On perusal of the impugned order, we find that Ld. NFAC instead of deciding the grounds raised before him against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) /263, has cut paste the original order passed u/s 143(3) wherein the issue was entirely different from the actual grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

Accordingly, we are setting aside the impugned order passed by Ld. NFAC and remitting the case to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law which has been raised before us after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →