Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a rectification order passed by the ACIT under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, contending it was time-barred. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity for representation, and there was ambiguity regarding the nature of the rectified order (whether it was a re-assessment or a second rectification).
Held
The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to make representations, consider all submissions, examine the time-barring objection, and pass a fresh order in accordance with Section 250(6), potentially after seeking a report from the AO.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rectification order passed by the AO under Section 154 was time-barred. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order. 3. Clarification of whether the rectification pertained to a previous re-assessment or a second rectification.
Sections Cited
154, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal having DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053993320(1) dated 27.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case record perused.
This is second appeal assailing the rectification-order dated 30.05.2018 passed by learned ACIT-5(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 154 of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. During hearing, Ld. AR of assessee raised a legal objection that the impugned rectification-order dated 30.05.2018 passed by AO was time-barred having been passed after the prescribed outer limit of 4 years in section 154. During deliberations, it also emerged that in the said rectification-order, the AO is talking of previous “re-assessment” and at the same time also referring to “section 154” relating to rectification. Thus, it is not clear as to whether the present rectification made by AO through impugned order dated 30.05.2018 was of a previous order of “re- assessment” or it was a 2nd “rectification” after previous rectification of original assessment. The fate of objection of time-barring would depend upon when the dust is clear as to whether there was “re-assessment” or “rectification” in past.
On further deliberations, Ld. Representatives of both sides were ad idem that the CIT(A)’s order is ex-parte, although due to non-representation by assessee. The CIT(A), in Para 5.2.2. of his order, has merely adjudicated “there do not appear any mistake in the impugned order passed by the A.O.” and dismissed assessee’s appeal. Ld. Representatives of both sides further agree that this case may be restored at the level of CIT(A) who would examine entire case from all angles including the legality objection of assessee after considering record of AO and pass an apt order in terms of section 250(6). Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to CIT(A). The Page 2 of 3 CIT(A) shall give one more opportunity to the assessee to make representation, consider all submissions of assessee and pass order afresh.
While doing so, the CIT(A) may also invite a report from AO, if considered necessary. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court / by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 03/02/2025