Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order emanated from an assessment order under Section 143(3). The assessee had previously filed an appeal against an earlier order of the CIT(A) concerning the same assessment year, which was decided by the ITAT Pune.
Held
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Addl./Joint CIT(A)-12, Delhi, under the Faceless Regime, was bad in law because a prior appeal concerning the same assessment order had already been decided. It was determined that there cannot be two orders of the CIT(A) under Section 250 against the same assessment order for an Assessment Year.
Key Issues
Whether an order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 is invalid if a previous appeal for the same assessment year concerning the same assessment order has already been decided by the ITAT, rendering the subsequent order bad in law.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 271, 234C, 244A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
The Assessee has filed an appeal against the order of ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-12, Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2025 for A.Y.2010-11, emanating from the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 03.11.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. General: The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in making an addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,45.95.659/- to the returned income of the Appellant.
Incorrect computation of margin of the comparable companies:
The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in considering incorrect operating margin of following comparable companies.
Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Limited ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited India Tourism Development Corporation Limited
Erroneous rejection of comparable companies:
The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in rejecting Ma Foi Global Search Services Limited and Ma Foi Management Consultants Limited as comparable companies.
Incorrect calculation of transfer pricing adjustment:
The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in calculating incorrect transfer pricing adjustment.
Erroneous addition of contractual and professional receipts:
The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in making inappropriate addition of contractual and professional receipts.
6. Erroneous disallowance of employee's contribution towards Provident Fund:
The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in disallowing employee's contribution towards Provident Fund.
Initiation of penalty proceedings : The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings section 271 of the Act without considering the facts of the case.
Levy of interest obligation: The learned DCIT has erred on the facts and in law by levying interest under section 234C and 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.
The Appellant reserves the right to amend alter or add to the grounds of appeal.
11. The Appellant prays that the order of the learned DCIT be modified to grant the reliefs claimed above.
Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed return of income electronically on 13.10.2010 declaring total loss of Rs.4,45,24,243/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) determining the total income at (-)Rs.2,99,28,583/-. The said assessment order was passed on 11.03.2014. Assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order before ld.CIT(Appeal).
3. It has been brought to our notice by ld.AR for the assessee that ld.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act, on 13.02.2020. Certified copy of the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 13.02.2020 is at page 9 to 56 of the paper book. The front page of the said order is reproduced as under : IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, PUNE Appeal No PN/CIT(A)-13/DCIT 8(3), Mumbai/10130/2018-19/556 Date of order :13.02.2020 Instituted on 11.04.2014 from the Order of the Assessing Officer [Beena Menon, DCIT-8(3), Mumbai] 1 Assessment Year 2010-11 2 Name & Address of the Appellant Trumpf (India) Pvt. Ltd. Sr. No.276, Hissa No.1, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, Pune-411057. 3 Permanent Account Number AACCT8008J 4 Assessed Income Rs.(-)2,99,28,583/- 5 Tax demanded Rs. Nil/- 6 Section under which order appealed U/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 against was passed 7 Date/s of hearing As per records 8 Present for the Appellant Mr. Ketan K. Ved, CA 9 Present for Department None
4. Assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) dated 13.02.2020 before ITAT Pune Bench. ITAT Pune in for A.Y.2010-11 decided the appeal vide order dated 15.09.2022, dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
5. Ld.AR further submitted that one more order has been passed by Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12, Delhi u/s.250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2010-11 dated 25.03.2025 which is emanating from the assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 11.03.2014. Ld.AR submitted that the order of the ld.Addl./Joint CIT(A) dated 25.03.2025 is infructuous, hence bad in law, as the appeal of the assessee has already been decided.
Ld.DR for the Revenue has accepted these facts.
7. We have already reproduced the front page of the order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 13.02.2020 which is emanating from the assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 11.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11. It is noted that in said order, the assessed income mentioned is of (-)Rs.2,99,28,583/- which is the assessed income mentioned in the assessment order dated 11.03.2014. We have also perused the ITAT Order in which is the appeal against order of ld.CIT(A)-13, Pune dated 13.02.2020 for A.Y.2010-11. It means the issue has attained finality now. However, it is observed that ld.Addl./Joint CIT(A)-12, Delhi under the faceless regime has again passed an order u/s.250 of the Act, on [A] 25.03.2025 for A.Y.2010-11 against the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2014. Thus, the order passed by ld.Addl./Joint CIT(A)-12, Delhi under the Faceless Regime is bad in law as the ld.CIT(A)-13, Pune had already decided the appeal of the assessee against the assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 11.03.2014. There cannot be two orders of ld.CIT(A) u/s.250 against the same assessment order of an Assessment Year.