Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order. An adjournment application was filed by the assessee's AR, claiming the assessment was time-barred and a related issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The application was rejected due to improper uniform, and both the assessee's AR and the revenue's CIT-DR were absent, leading the Bench to proceed based on available facts.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the DRP's order, which formed the basis of the assessment, failed to provide specific reasons for adjudicating the assessee's explanations. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the DRP for passing a speaking order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the DRP's order, lacking detailed reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanations, was valid, and if the assessment order based on such a DRP order could be sustained.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(13), 144B, 92CA(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Madhu Jayanti International Vs DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Pvt. Limited, Biowonder, 15th Floor, 789, EM Bypass, Anandapur East Kolkata PAN No. : AABCM 7502 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hitesh Goyal, AR रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2024, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department passed in DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1069739762(1) for the assessment year 2021-2022.
Shri Hitesh Goyal, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The assessee has filed an adjournment application wherein it is mentioned that the assessment is time barred and the assessee is relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs. ACIT, passed in W.P.No.2340 of 2021. In the adjournment application he has also mentioned that the issue is now Hon’ble Supreme Court and he desires an adjournment to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One Shri Hitesh Goyal, CA/AR represented on behalf of the assessee and he has represented through virtual hearing without proper uniform as prescribed. As the counsel was not in the proper uniform, the adjournment application was rejected and the appeal was taken up for disposal.
When the CIT-DR was called for hearing but it was found that the ld. CIT-DR was also absent. Consequently, left with no other alternative, the Bench has proceeded to dispose off this appeal on the basis of facts and circumstances available in the file.
A perusal of the assessment order shows that he has relied upon the DRP’s order passed u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, dated 18.10.2023. A perusal of the order of the ld. DRP shows that the ld. DRP has given notice of hearing to the assessee and the assessee has also given replies to the various issues. However, a perusal of the order of the ld. DRP, does not show any reasons having been given by the ld. DRP in regard to the explanations provided by the assessee. The same is also in regard to the TPO. The TPO’s order is dated 18.10.2023 and the DRP’s order is dated 09.09.2024. As the explanation given by the assessee has not been adjudicated upon point-wise by the ld. DRP, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. DRP for passing a speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.