M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI

At the outset, it was submitted by Shri Veeramani, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee’s appeal before the first appellate authority (i.e., NFAC, Delhi) against it’s assessment for AY 2014-15, stands in fact disposed of, adverting to a copy of the order dated 21.11.2021 by it in the assessee’s case for AY 2014-15. Rather, appeal there-against stands also since disposed of by the Tribunal on 04.08.2022 (in copy of which again stands appended in it’s paper-book (APB pgs. 10-16). At this stage, it was brought to his notice by the Bench that the impugned order is in ITANo. 21/Coch/2023 (AY: 2014-15) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT respect of a different appeal (i.e.,CIT(A), Kochi-1–10616/2016-17), instituted on 21.12.2016 and, further, arising from the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 07.11.2016. The appellate order dated 21.11.2021 was in respect of Appeal No. CIT(A), Kochi-1–10283/2016-17, instituted on 19/12/2016 against order u/s. 143(3) dated 30/11/2016. Did the assessee file two appeals against the same order, i.e., even assuming a single assessment? He could not furnish any satisfactory answer. This is surprising as the appeal before the first appellate authority is filed only by the assessee. Further, how could there be two assessment orders, i.e., dated 07.11.2016 (not on record) and 30.11.2016 (which shows the last date of hearing before the Assessing Officer (Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi) as 07.11.2016) in respect of same proceedings? Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR, also could not throw any light in the matter.

The question before us therefore is if the impugned order is a valid order and, thus, maintainable in law, or not? The answer, in the peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, lies with the assessee, at whose behest the appeals are filed against the assessment order and the appellate proceedings initiated. Both, the existence of two assessment orders, as also the filing of two appeals, which entails a fee, is bewildering in the least. The presumption in law, though rebuttable, is that all official acts are regularly performed? In fact, we observe that the impugned order, as indeed that dated 22.11.2021, address the same grounds raised by the assessee per its memorandum of appeal (Form 35).

Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper that the appeal is restored back to the file of the first appellate authority, who shall issue definite findings on: (a) if the instant appeal, instituted before it on 21.12.2016, is maintainable in view of the appeal instituted on 19.12.2016, since disposed of by it on 22.11.2021;