Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s Receivable Management Vs Income Tax Officer, Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now merged Ward-21(2), with Iqor India Services Pvt. New Delhi-110002 Ltd.), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR5563Q Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Khemka, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 15.02.2016.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of law the Assessing officer has erred in holding that excess share premium received by the assessee be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and the Hon'ble DRP has not adjudicated on the said objection to the draft assessment order raised by the assessee.
2. Assessing officer has also erred on the facts and law in recalculating the depreciation charged in the financial statement in computing the book profit under section 115JB and held that excess 2 Receivable Management Services Pvt. Ltd. depreciation had been charged to the extent of Rs.52,98,623 and similarly as above the Hon'ble DRP has not adjudicated on the said objection to the draft assessment order raised by the assessee.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that reference u/s 92CA of the Act was made for computation of Arm’s Length Price and order u/s 92CA of the Act dated 28.01.2014 was passed by Additional Director of Income Tax, TPO- II(1), New Delhi suggesting addition of Rs.1,66,34,975/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The said addition was deleted vide directions of the Dispute Resolution panel u/s 144C(5) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 07.11.2014. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the assessment order was passed on 31.12.2014. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the appeal should be filed before the ITAT as per provisions u/s 253(1)(d) of the Act.
During the hearing before us, the ld. DR brought to our notice that as per Form No. 36, the appeal filed before the Tribunal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15.02.2016 communicated to the assessee on 04.03.2016. He further argued that as per the column No. 5 & 6 of Form 36, it is clear that the appeal before the ITAT has been filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250(6) of the Act instead of order u/s 143(3) read with Section 253(1)(d) of the Act.
The ld. AR has fairly agreed that the appeal needs to be filed before the ITAT against the order of the Assessing Officer which has been passed subsequent to the directions of the DRP. He sought permission to file the fresh appeal in this matter.
Having gone through the record and after going through the arguments of both the parties, we hereby hold that the appeal No. 3 Receivable Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 2325/Del/2016 is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. The assessee is given liberty to file fresh appeal as per the Rules of ITAT in force.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/08/2019).