NEW ERA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3272/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's first and fourth grounds pertaining to income computation and the stated refund amount. The second and third grounds, concerning the short granting of interest under Section 244A and adjustments to refund amounts, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation and factual verification, as these required detailed examination rather than tribunal adjudication under Section 254(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order for AY 2021-22, framed based on Dispute Resolution Panel directions under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13). The appeal challenged the computation of income, short granting of interest under Section 244A, non-granting of a refund, and stating incorrect refund amounts under Section 156. The assessee opted not to press grounds related to income computation and the stated refund amount, which the Revenue also agreed not to pursue.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the correctness of income computation as per DRP directions, the proper calculation and granting of interest under Section 244A, and the adjustment of refund amounts, with some requiring factual verification by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 244A,Section 156,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CA
Hearing: 06.03.2025Pronounced: 21.03.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 arises against the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi, assessment order dated 31.10.2023 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-1, New Delhi directions dated 18.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

Denagamage Proboth Mahela Desilva Jayawardene “1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO), erred in computing an income of Rs. 4,55,64,966 as Income from other sources and as Gross Total Income in the computation sheet, which is not in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the assessment order.

2. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, erred in short granting interest under Section 244A of the Act.

3. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, erred in adjusting a refund of Rs. 100,859 which is not granted to the assessee.

4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, erred in stating a refund of Rs. 0 as against a refund of Rs. 61,00,099 due to the assessee in the notice issued under Section 156 of the Act dated 31.10.2023.”

4.

Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee has no more wishes to press his first and fourth substantive grounds subject to a rider that the same are not treated as a precedent in any other assessment years. The Revenue’s is equally fair is not processing the assessee’s preceding prayer.

5.

That being the case, we reject the assessee’s first and fourth substantive grounds subject to all just exceptions.

6.

Next comes the assessee’s second and third substantive grounds claiming interest and refund; involving varying sums. Both the parties are very much ad idem during the course of hearing that both these issues more Denagamage Proboth Mahela Desilva Jayawardene requires learned Assessing Officer afresh factual verification than the tribunal substantive adjudication thereof u/s 254(1) of the Act. We accordingly remit the assessee’s instant second and third substantive grounds back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh computation and necessary verification as per law.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/03/2025.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →