ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4848/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 September 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed for the wrong assessment year and that there was no attempt to rectify this mistake. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer filed an appeal against an order for assessment year 2015-16. However, the attached orders and authorization for filing the appeal pertained to assessment year 2009-10. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10 had quashed the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the revenue was maintainable due to a mismatch in the assessment year specified in the appeal memo and the assessment years of the orders being appealed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ]

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C. A.;
For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. D. R.;
Hearing: 14/09/2021Pronounced: 14/09/2021

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

This appeal is filed by the Addl. CIT, Special Range 4, New Delhi, against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–35, New Delhi, dated 12.04.2018 for assessment year 2009-10 raising following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the original reason recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 for escapement of income was amended.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding the re-assessment proceeding u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as void by holding that the original reason recorded was amended while being reproduced in ‘order disposing objections filed by the assessee against the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act’ and the ‘re-assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act’ despite the fact that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Delhi has given approval for issue of notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for escapement of income of Rs.9,54,73,521/- on 31.03.2016 as is evident from the order sheet of assessment records. Page | 1

3.

Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT(2011), 60 DTR 77(Delhi High Court) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “Assessing officer has the jurisdiction to re-assess other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive.

4.

Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (i) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236(Bombay) wherein it has been held that once assessment is open - any other income can be considered. 5. Reliance is further placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Bestword 331 ITR 63 Ker FB. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. “

2. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs. 6,79,96,479/-. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was completed on 24th December, 2011 at a loss of Rs. 4,00,62,273/-. Learned AO issued notice u/s 147 to the assessee on 31.03.2016 and consequent assessment order was passed on 27.12.2016 determining total loss of the assessee at Rs. 371,17938/-. The only addition made in this assessment is disallowance on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 308,78,541-.

3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who allowed the appeal of the assessee quashing the reopening of the assessment as per para 4.2.7.10 of her order at page Nos. 21 & 22 of the order. On the merits of the case, she did not adjudicate as the re-opening of the assessment was quashed. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved with the above order. 4. At the commencement of hearing, we found that ld. Assessing Officer has preferred an appeal for assessment year 2015-16 as mentioned in column No. 3 of Form No. 36 whereas the orders attached there-with are pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. We have also perused the order dated 5.07.2018 wherein the authorization was granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4, New Delhi, for filing appeal for assessment year 2009-10 whereas the ld. Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned that appeal is filed for assessment year 2015-16. Further at serial No. 11 of Form No. 36 also while mentioning the addresses of the respondent, the Page | 2 Assessing Officer has specifically stated the address for this assessment year i.e. assessment year 2015-16. In view of the above facts, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is for wrong assessment year. In view of this infirmity, the appeal of the ld. Assessing Officer deserves to be dismissed. 5. However, we are also conscious of the fact that Assessing Officer has filed appeal on 6th July, 2018. However, till 2021 there is no attempt made by the ld. Assessing Officer for rectifying the above mistake. In the covering letter dated 6.07.2018 the ld. Assessing Officer did not care even to look at for which assessment year he is filing an appeal and orders for which assessment year are enclosed with that appeal memo. Therefore, we find no reason to hold that this appeal is maintainable at all. 6. However, in the interest of justice, if the ld. Assessing Officer desires to to file appeal for assessment year 2009-10, we give liberty to him to file such appeal with a proper request for condonation of delay. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the ld. Assessing Officer is dismissed, as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 14/09/2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →