DSP FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -39(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL () Assessment Year: 2020-21
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
29.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds:
(a) The le (Appeals) [CIT holding that under section section 143(1 September 13 dismissing t considering th (b) The learn aforesaid inti 12, 2023. The the time limit the CIT(A) oug case on merits 2. Without pre (a) The CPC Income-tax A income of a su of sum of Rs erred in dete appellant as appellant as p (b) The CPC qualify or fall and accordin adjustments 143(1). (c) Without pr disallowing a being provisio before the du was disallow as business year under a 43B of the Ac (d) Without p disallowing a between the which is deb claimed as pe ITA earned Additional/Joint Commissioner T(A)] under the face-less appellate procee there is a delay of nine months in filin n 250 of the Act against intimation p 1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the 3, 2022 by the Central Processing Cen the appeal of the Appellant in- lim he merits of the case. ed CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the imation was actually served to the appe e appeal was filed on June 09, 2023, w prescribed under section 249 of the Act ght to have admitted the said appeal an s.. ejudice to what is stated in 1 above: while passing intimation under section Act, 1961 ("the Act") erred in determini um of Rs.231,32,24,150/- as against a ta s.226,32,93,530/- as per Return of Inco rmining a sum of Rs.2,69,71,889/- refu against a sum of Rs.3,33,03,998/- refu per return of income filed erred in making certain adjustment w l under the adjustments specified under ngly the CPC was not justified in to total income while passing order u rejudice to what is stated in 2(b) above, a sum of Rs.69,50,020/- under section 4 on for gratuity which has been paid du ue date of filing of the Income Tax Retu wed in earlier years and the same ought deduction on payment basis during th appeal in accordance with the Explanat ct. prejudice to what is stated above, the a sum of Rs.1,78,20,507/- on account depreciation charged as per Compani bited to Profit and Loss account and the er the provisions of section 32 of the Act DSP Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2 A No. 4263/MUM/2024 of Income-tax edings erred in ng the appeal passed under e Act") dated tre (CPC) and mine without fact that the ellant on May which is within and therefore nd decided the 143(1) of the ing a taxable axable income ome filed and undable to the undable to the which do not section 143(1) making the under Section CPC erred in 43B of the Act uring the year urn. The same to be allowed he assessment tion to Section CPC erred in of difference ies Act, 2013 e depreciation which amount was already disallowance. 3. The appella (i) To delete Rs.69,50,020 amounting to accordance w 2. The relevant fa return of income fo which was processe order under Section September 2022, wh returned income. A preferred an appeal b June 2023. The asse 13th September 202 Consequently, it was 2023 fell within the prescribed under Sec the Ld. CIT(A). Notwi presenting its submi formal application se the appeal. The Ld. assessee’s claim that delay of over nine m the intimation order ITA disallowed in the return of income resul . ant submits that the Assessing Officer be the disallowance under section 43B 0/-; (ii) To delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,78,20,507 /; and to modify the a with the provisions of the Act cts, as presented, are that the a or the assessment year under ed by the CPC. Subsequently, n 143(1) of the Act was is herein certain adjustments we Aggrieved by this intimation, before Ld. CIT(A), which was in ssee contended that the intimat 22 was served upon it on 1 s submitted that the appeal file e statutory limitation period ction 249 of the Act, for filing a ithstanding this contention, the issions on the merits of the cas eeking condonation of the delay . CIT(A), however, was not co t the intimation order had been months. Instead, the Ld. CIT(A) r was served immediately afte DSP Finance Pvt. Ltd. 3 A No. 4263/MUM/2024 lting in double directed: amounting to f depreciation assessment in assessee filed its r consideration, , an intimation ssued on 13th re made to the , the assessee nstituted on 9th tion order dated 2th May 2023. ed on 9th June of 30 days, as an appeal before assessee, while se, did not file a , if any, in filing onvinced by the n served with a concluded that er its issuance.
Based on this determ delay and, accordin
Aggrieved by the dism the present appeal be raising the grounds a 2.1 This matter, theref adjudication:
1. The factual disp intimation order
2. Whether the Ld in filing the ap without adjudic
3. We have carefully con parties and thorough matter pertains to t intimation issued un
(hereinafter referred
Centre (CPC), Bangal
3.1 Ground No. 1 of th appeal by the Ld. CIT the expiry of the lim of the Act.During the ITA mination, the Ld. CIT(A) declined ngly, dismissed the appeal a missal of its appeal, the assesse efore the Income Tax Appellate as outlined above.
fore, revolves around two c pute concerning the actual date r under Section 143(1) of the Ac
. CIT(A) erred in declining to co ppeal and, consequently, reje cating the merits.
nsidered the submissions advan hly perused the material placed the appeal filed by the assess nder Section 143(1) of the Incom to as "the Act") by the Cen lore he appeal relates to the non-ad
T(A) due to the alleged filing of mitation period prescribed under e course of the hearing before u
DSP Finance Pvt. Ltd.
4
A No. 4263/MUM/2024
d to condone the as unadmitted.
ee has preferred
Tribunal (ITAT), core issues for of service of the ct.
ndone the delay cting the same nced by the rival d on record. The see against the me-tax Act, 1961
ntral Processing dmission of the the appeal after r Section 249(2) us, the Learned
Departmental Repres submit evidence est intimation order iss compliance with the 15th June 2025, su
(AO). The report categ
Section 143(1) of the upon the assessee o
AO's report is reprodu
"On perusal of in seen that the inti vide DIN No. C assessee on 11.0
through SMS on M filed for the year the CPC 2.0 Por initiation date of the delivery stat dispatch is Email (Basant Kumar A ACIT-3(1)(1), Mum
3.2 In view of the repo established that the was served upon Consequently, the CIT(A) on 9th June
ITA sentative (hereinafter "Ld. DR") tablishing the actual date of sued under Section 143(1) o direction, the Ld. DR, during ubmitted a report from the As gorically stated that the intimat e Act, dated 13th September 20
n 11th May 2023. The relevan uced below:
nformation available in the CPC imation u/s 143(1) of the Act da
CPC/2021/A6/303385850 was 05.2023 on the email ID cf.taxes@
Mobile No. 8879189908 mention under consideration. The releva rtal is attached for your ready the said document is shown as 1
us is also shown as 11.05.202
l/SMS, and the status is shown
Arya) mbai"
ort submitted by the AO, it i e intimation order dated 13th S the assessee only on 11t appeal filed by the assessee
2023 falls well within the stat
DSP Finance Pvt. Ltd.
5
A No. 4263/MUM/2024
was directed to service of the of the Act. In the hearing on ssessing Officer tion order under 022, was served nt portion of the C 2.0 Portal, it is ated 13.09.2022
served on the @dspim.com and ned in the return ant screenshot of y reference. The 11.05.2023, and 23. The mode of as SUCCESS.
s unequivocally
September 2022
th May 2023. before the Ld.
tutory limitation period of 30 days, a The Ld. CIT(A), in erred in not appreci date of service of th the Ld. CIT(A) on t
CIT(A) has not adjud raised therein, the fresh adjudication, before him. The Gr allowed. The Groun dismissed as infruct
4. In the result, the ap purposes.
Order pronounced (KAVITHA RAJ
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 21/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA as prescribed under Section 24
rejecting the appeal as time-ba iating the correct factual positio he intimation order. Accordingly this issue is hereby set aside dicated the appeal on the merits matter is remitted back to the confined to the merits of the round No. 1 of the appeal of nd Nos. 2 and 3, being alternati tuous.
ppeal of the assessee is allowe d in the open Court on 21/01/202
/-
S
JAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA o :
BY ORDER,
(Assistant Regist
ITAT, Mum
DSP Finance Pvt. Ltd.
6
A No. 4263/MUM/2024
49(2) of the Act.
arred, has thus on regarding the y, the finding of . Since the Ld.
s of the grounds e Ld. CIT(A) for grounds raised the assessee is ive grounds, are ed for statistical
5. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER trar) bai