HIMACHAL FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 740/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 January 2025AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated April 30, 2024, is to be set aside. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had taken up an appeal that had already been decided. The CIT(A) had previously decided the appeal on December 30, 2019. Subsequently, the CIT(A) picked up the same appeal again, dismissed it for want of prosecution, and unnecessarily decided the same matter twice. The Tribunal found this to be a procedural impropriety. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was vacated. The operative direction was to vacate the order of the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Himachal Fashion Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring 'Nil' income. An assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on March 17, 2015, determining the taxable income at Rs. 75,17,116. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty order was passed on March 26, 2019. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), whose order dated December 30, 2019, was further appealed by the assessee to the ITAT (ITA No. 8/CHD/2020), which was decided on September 10, 2024. The impugned order of the CIT(A) under challenge in the present appeal (ITA No. 740/CHD/2024) is dated April 30, 2024, and appears to have been passed by the CIT(A) after picking up an already decided appeal and dismissing it for want of prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an order dated April 30, 2024, when the appeal for the same assessment year (2012-13) and against the same penalty proceedings had already been decided by the CIT(A) on December 30, 2019, and subsequently appealed to the ITAT (ITA No. 8/CHD/2020) which was decided on September 10, 2024? (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to procedural impropriety and jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is erroneous as it pertains to an appeal that was already adjudicated. The assessee highlighted that another appeal for the same year, ITA No. 8/CHD/2020, had been allowed by the ITAT on September 10, 2024. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 20.01.2025Pronounced: 21.01.2025

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 30.04.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in this very year, one more appeal was filed A.Y.2012-13 2 which has been allowed vide order dated 10.09.2024.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the present appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13. In this year, assessee has filed its return of income on 09.11.2013 declaring total income at ‘Nil’. An assessment order was framed on 17.03.2015 under Section 143(3) whereby taxable income of the assessee was determined at Rs.75,17,116/-. It appeared that penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and ultimately a penalty order was passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 26.03.2019. The demand notice was served upon assessee on 27.03.2019. Dis- satisfied with this order, assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was decided on 30.12.2019. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A), a further appeal was filed by the assessee bearing ITA No.8/CHD/2020. This appeal has been decided on 10.09.2024. The CIT(A) in the impugned order challenged in the ITA 740/CHD/2024 has made a mention that appeal is instituted against an order dated 06.09.2022.

It appears that he picks up that very appeal for adjudication A.Y.2012-13 3 and then dismissed it for want of prosecution. Infact, that appeal was already decided by the ld. CIT(A) on 30.10.2019.

4.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that alleged impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is to be set aside because ld. CIT(A) has taken up the appeal again which already stands decided.

The ld. CIT(A) after picking up the appeal again dismissed it for want of prosecution and unnecessarily decided the same appeal twice. Therefore, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is vacated.

5.

In the result, appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on 21.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →