Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA
M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, B-2, 1st Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna - 800001 [PAN: AACCB1034G] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi - 100001 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 02.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 08.01.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 (ITA No. 66/Pat/2023) and AY 2013-14 ( is time barred by 28 days. For this purpose, a petition for condoning such delay has been filed with the following contents:
“a. That the appeal filed by the Assessee Corporation before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 was disposed of by an Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047736388(1) dated 30-11-2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax & 37/Pat/2023 M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre. Such Order was served on November 30, 2022. b. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was expired on January 29, 2023. c. That I was advised by the Tax Advisor to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench for relief. d. That the accounts officer of the Assessee Corporation was pre-occupied in finalisation of statutory audit, organising and arranging Meeting of the Board of Directors for getting their approval, vital for the smooth running of the assessee corporation in next financial year. Hence the appeal could not be filed on time. e. That in this way there is a delay of 25 days for which this application being filed along with memorandum of appeal. f. That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.” 1.1 Considering the reasons advanced for the delay the said delay is hereby condoned and (ITA No. 66/Pat/2023) appeal is admitted for adjudication along with ( ) which has been filed on time.
These two appeals are taken up for adjudication through a single order considering that both the appeals have been decided against the Appellant on similar grounds, of inadequate persuasion. emanates from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] and 250 of the Act passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.12.2022. Both the appellate orders have been passed without the benefit of any response or submission from the assessee’s side and this fact has been recorded in both the cases in paras 4 of the two impugned orders. For AY 2012-13 the addition made on account of interest income by the Ld. AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) mainly on the ground that there was non-compliance by the assessee to the notices fixing the dates for hearing. Similarly, for AY 2013-1, the addition made on account of provision of storage loss of Rs. 2.1 Aggrieved with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to both of the orders, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre ["the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - (Appeals), Circle -2, Patna (A.O.) assessing the appellant at an income of Rs. 3,74,97,125/-, as against assessed income of Rs. 3,45,06,732/-, under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ("the Act").
2. For that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,90,393/-, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.
3. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 29,90,393/-, (Rs. Twenty Nine Lacs Ninety Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Only) made in respect of Interest Income be deleted."
4. That the whole order passed by the CIT (A) is bad in the facts of law. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary, the above grounds of appeal at or before.”
“For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre ["the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Patna (A.O.) assessing the appellant at an income of Rs. 5,54,98,470/-, as against assessed income of Rs. 2,90,98,470/- , under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ("the Act").
2. For that the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming in disallowing the claim of provision for Storage Loss amounting to Rs. 2.64 Crore (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Four Lacs Only) under section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.
3. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. Rs. 2.64 Crore (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Four Lacs Only) made in respect of Provision for Storage Loss be deleted."
That the whole order passed by the CIT (A) is bad in the facts of law.
The Ld. AR argued the matter with the help of paper book and assailed the action of authorities below. The Ld. AR dwelt at length on the 3.1 The Ld. DR supported the order of authorities below and stated that the assessee should have been vigilant about his matter before the Ld. CIT(A).
4. We have carefully considered the documents placed before us, the orders of authorities below and the averments of Ld. AR/DR. It is clear that the assessee did not pursue the matters pertaining to both the assessment orders before the Ld. CIT(A). For this inaction on his part, he is seen to have suffered the confirmation of actions of the Ld. AO. We are considerably persuaded by one of the arguments of the Ld. AR that the assessee deserves a second chance to establish his credentials before the Ld. CIT(A) in case such a chance was provided to him. Accordingly, we remand both the matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to avail of opportunities for presenting his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, both the appeals are remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and hence these two matters are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 08.01.2025