JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the objection was filed within the period of limitation, considering the public holiday. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have considered the objection on its merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an objection to the draft assessment order one day late due to a public holiday. The Dispute Resolution Panel rejected the objection as time-barred and refused to recall its order.
What were the issues?
Whether the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in rejecting the assessee's objection filed one day after the due date due to a public holiday.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी िड.एस. सु�दर �सह, लेखा सद�य केसम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1527/Mds/2016 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd (as Deputy Commissioner of Income transferee company into which v. Tax, M/s.Henkel India Limited has LTU-II, Chennai. merged) Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road, Off Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059. PAN : AABCT0167F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Arpita, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Arun C. Bharath, CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.12.2016 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2016 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the assessing officer dated 18.01.2016 consequent to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel.
We heard Ms.Arpita, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri Arun C Bharath, Ld. Departmental Representative. Admittedly the Dispute Resolution Panel refused to consider the objection filed by the assessee on the ground that the objection was filed after the delay of one day. The application filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was also rejected by the Dispute Resolution Panel on the ground that it has no power to recall its earlier order. The fact remains is that the assessee received the draft assessment order on 04.04.2015, the objection ought to have been filed on or before 04.05.2015. Admittedly 04.05.2015 was a public holiday on account of Buddha Purnima. It is also not in dispute that the assessee filed the objection on 05.05.2015 i.e., the next working day. While rejecting the objection filed by the assessee under Section 154, the Dispute Resolution Panel admitted that the objection of the assessee should have been considered since the same was filed within the period of limitation. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel expressed its inability to consider the same.
In view of this factual situation, it is obvious that the objection was filed by the assessee within the period of 30 days as provided under Section 144C of the Act. Therefore the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have considered the same on merit. This tribunal is unable to uphold the order of the lower authority since the objection was admittedly filed within the period of limitation.
Accordingly, the order of the assessing officer is set aside and the entire issue is restored back to the file of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall consider the objection of the assessee on merit after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and thereafter decide the same in accordance with the law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 27th December, 2016 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 144C
- Mishoo Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 19/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 18/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2016-2017
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 17/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 16/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-2015
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 15/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026