REWA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. KAPIL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC - 18 & 19, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4594/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 August 2020AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue of notice service was a factual matter requiring verification and that the technical grounds went to the root of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order. A key ground raised was that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served within the statutory time. The CIT(A) had sought a remand report, but the assessee claimed it was not served with the report.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice under Section 143(2) was validly served within the prescribed time, and whether the assessee was given an opportunity to rebut the remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, Shri Dinesh Wagh and CA Karthik
For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, Ms. Jyothilaxmi Nayak and Ms

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI (J.M.): This appeal in A.Y.2006-07 arises out of the order by the ld. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (h/c.CIT(Appeals)-51, Mumbai in appeal No.Pr.CIT(OSD)[h/c CIT(A)-

1.

M/s. Rewa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 51/IT-87/2013-14 dated 09/02/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2013 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

At the outset, we find that assessee has raised several grounds and each of those grounds are without prejudice to other grounds raised. We find that assessee has raised a specific ground stating that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not served on the company within the prescribed statutory time. We find that this ground was also raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld.CIT(A) had sought for a remand report in this regard and it is seen from para 6.2 of the appellate order, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on the assessee on 30/07/2012 and served on the assessee. We find that this fact is mentioned by the ld. AO in his remand report and seemed to have submitted before the ld. CIT(A). We also find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2. of his order had stated that the remand report was served on the assessee for its rebuttal and comments. But it seems that there was no response to the said remand report from the side of the assessee as recorded in para 6.2 of the ld. CIT(A). But we find that the assessee has raised specific ground before us vide ground No.2 that the remand report was never served on the assessee and accordingly, pleaded that no opportunity was per se given to the assessee to adjudicate the technical grounds raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). We find that before us, these technical grounds raised by the assessee were not withdrawn. But we also find that the adjudication of the issue as to whether notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was duly served on the assessee within the statutory prescribed time is a pure matter of fact which requires

M/s. Rewa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., verification. We further find that the technical grounds raised by the assessee go to the root of the issue and the valid assumption of jurisdiction. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law with specific direction to serve the remand report on the assessee and seek the rebuttal of the assessee thereon and then proceed to adjudicate other issue on merits, if found necessary. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1,2 & 10 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The other grounds raised by the assessee either on technical issues or on merits of the additions are left open and assessee is at liberty to raise those issues before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we refrain to give our opinion on the said grounds. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 07 /08/2020 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (M BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 07 /08 /2020 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. Rewa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →