BBG METAL SYNDICATE PVT. LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.361/CTK/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) BBG Metal Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-1(1),Cuttack Badambadi, Behind Traffic Tower, Cuttack, 753009 PAN No. : AAECB 4011 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri K. K Bal, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 28.03.2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the returned filed by the assessee came to be processed and intimation came to be issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee had filed rectification application and the CPC had rejected the rejection application. It was submission that it was not a effective rejection but was in fact reprocessing of the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act. It was submission that on appeal the Ld.CIT(A) had observed the page 3 of his order that the issue were purely factual and required verification of the claim at the end of the AO and at consequently, directed the AO to verify the claim made by the Appellant and passed a speaking order u/s. 154 of the Act giving an opportunity of being heard

2 u/s. 154(3) of the Act to the appellant. It was submission that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving such directions and the CPC could not be equated to have the powers of disposing a rectification applications u/s.154 of the Act. It was submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 3. In reply, Ld. Sr. DR admitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has only directed the AO to examine the issues in respect of the facts and to readjudicate the issue in the rectification application. It was submission that there was no error order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the power of set aside has also been granted to Ld. CIT(A) now. This being so, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) directing the AO to pass an order u/s.154 of the Act after verifying the facts and after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard is very much in order. It must be mentioned here that the 154 application to be disposed of by the AO is mentioned CIT(A) order and it is not through CPC obviously when the AO has been directed to dispose of the 154 it is for the AO to do the necessary verification. In the result, we are of the view that no inference called for in the order of the CIT(A) and consequently we dismissed the same. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.