TECHNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the issue was resolved by the CPC under section 154, the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should have been treated as redundant. The CIT(Appeals) erred by making observations on depreciation without proper notice for enhancement.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income, but the CPC did not approve the reduced tax rate under section 115BAA. The assessee filed an application under section 154 and an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CPC later granted relief under section 154.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in adjudicating an appeal that had become infructuous due to a subsequent order under section 154, and whether observations on depreciation were valid without a notice for enhancement.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi 28.10.2021 passed in Assessment Year 2020-21.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that the assessee has filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Techna Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Income Tax Act. This return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) on 29.03.2021. The CPC did not approve the reduce rate of taxes applicable upon the assessee under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that against this order dated 29.03.2021 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed an application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act as well as an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. 1st Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on 28.10.2021, whereas its application under section 154 was decided on 07.07.2021. Since necessary relief was granted by the CPC vide its order dated 07.07.2021 under section 154 of the Income Tax Act (though neither intimation under section 143(1) for not calculating rate of tax on reduced rate u/s 115BAA contained any reasoning nor processing of 154 application, accepting applicability of reduced rate tax u/s 115BAA contains any reasoning), the ld. 1st Appellate Authority ideally ought to have treated the appeal of the assessee as redundant and infructuous because no cause of action was left for adjudication in the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that instead of dismissal of appeal as infructuous, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has commented that since the assessee has claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act at a higher rate, therefore, concessional rate of tax is not applicable under section 115BAA(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone though the record carefully. Since the ld. Assessing Officer has already decided the issue with regard to the applicability of rate of tax, no further dispute remains pending with the ld. CIT(Appeals). In case, ld. CIT(Appeals) wanted to change the colour of litigation or character of litigation by making an observation for disallowance of reduced rate of taxation on account of excess claim of depreciation, then specific notice for enhancement of assessment of income ought to have been given, which ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to give. In these given circumstances, we allow this appeal and vacate the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals). It is to be treated
Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Techna Infrastructure Pvt. Limited that the appeal of the assessee ought to have been rendered as redundant or infructuous instead of making any observation. Thus the appeal of assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) would be treated as dismissed being infructuous. Any observation made by ld. CIT(Appeals) stands vacated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on September 26, 2022.
More judgments on Section 115BAA
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Triveni Interchem Private Limited, Vapi vs DCIT, Valsad Circle, ValsadITA 1199/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Tirthnkar Financial Services Private… vs ITO Ward 4(3)(1), MumbaiITA 2982/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Falcon Bus Lines Private Limited, Mumbai vs DCIT 5(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7271/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026