SAIURJA HYDEL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 537/CHANDI/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)7 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the letter dated 07.02.2020 was merely an intimation and not an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed before the CIT(A) against this letter was infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a letter intimating that a rectification order had already been passed. The assessee had previously filed a rectification application which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the letter was not an appealable order.

What were the issues?

Whether a letter intimating that a rectification order has been passed is an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 246A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr.Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 15.04.2024Pronounced: 03.05.2024

आदेश/ORDER

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 against the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)].

2.

The appeal is barred by limitation by ten days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of ten days’ delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. It is submitted in the application that the impugned order was passed by the ld.

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 2 CIT(A) on 22.04.2022 and the last date of limitation for filing the appeal expired on 21.06.2022. It is further submitted in the application that the impugned order was uploaded on the official website of the assessee on 22.04.2022 and the assessee did not look into the website. The assessee came to know about passing of the order on 26.06.2022 and thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal and in the process, a delay of ten days occurred. The assessee has requested to condone the delay as it was neither willful nor unintentional.

3.

From the contents of the application, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before this Tribunal within the stipulated time. Even otherwise, the assessee cannot be said to stand to gain anything by deliberately delaying the filing of the appeal. Therefore, the delay is condoned.

4.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is not justified in holding that the order passed by the Td Assessing Officer on the application filed under section 154 by the appellant assessee was not an appealable order as per law.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities below are not justified in holding that addition in respect of the depreciation as per the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act had to be added back for computation of Income for levy of MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. That the order of the Ld Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts .

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 3 5. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that it does not wish to press Ground No.1. Rejected as not pressed.

6.

Apropos Ground Nos. 2 to 3, the facts are that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 03.09.2017, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.7,01,47,629/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application on 10.11.2017. The same was disposed of vide order dated 06.04.2018, rejecting the request for rectification of the assessee. The assessee preferred the appeal against the rectification order dated 06.04.2018 before the ld. CIT(A). By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. This brings the assessee in further appeal before us.

7.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) on the rectification application filed by the assessee was not an appealable order and that the addition in respect of the depreciation as per the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act had to be added back for computation of income for levy of MAT u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 4 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.

9.

It is seen that the application for rectification was rejected by the AO vide order dated 06.04.2018 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act rejecting the request for rectification of the assessment order. For ready reference, the order dated 06.04.2018 (APB 64) is reproduced hereunder :

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 5 9.1 It appears vide letter dated 07.02.2020 that the AO intimated to the assessee that order u/s 154 of the Act stood passed on 06.04.2018 and that a copy of the same had been handed over to Shri Narender Gupta, Account Officer/AR.

For ready reference, the said letter dated 07.02.2020 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 6 It is seen that the aforesaid letter dated 07.02.2020 9.2 encloses with it, as mentioned in para 2 of the letter, a copy of the said order dated 06.04.2018.

9.3 The assessee, rather than challenging the order dated 06.04.2017 passed u/s 154 of the Act, for reasons best known to it, went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid letter dated 07.02.2020, whereby, only an intimation was conveyed to the assessee that the assessee's rectification application had already been decided vide order dated 06.04.2018.

10.

In this background of the matter, we do not find any error with the order of the ld. CIT(A), whereby the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed as follows :

After consideration of all documents furnished and the sequence of events, I find that the appellant has filed the present appeal against a letter intimating the appellant that that rectification order has already been passed and AO made a request to pay the outstanding demand as the notice u/s 221(1) of the Act has already been issued to the appellant. Thus, the letter issued by the AO on 07.02.2020 is a letter, which is not an appealable order u/s 246A of the IT. Act. In fact, the appellant in its form No. 35 has wrongly depicted the order appealed against as Order u/s 154 of the Act dated 07.02.2020. Since the appellant has not filed the appeal against an order, which is an appealable order u/s 246A of the Act before the CIT(A), the present appeal is infructuous in nature and hence the same is dismissed.

11.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee has not been able to demonstrate that the letter appealed against before the ld.

ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 7 CIT(A), i.e., letter dated 07.02.2020 was an appealable order u/s 246A of the Act. Section 246A is a specific provision containing the list of orders which are appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). It has not been shown that the letter dated 07.02.2020 comprised an appealable order under the provisions of Section 246A of the Act.

12.

In view of the above, finding no error, whatsoever therein, the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order are confirmed. The grievance sought to be raised by the assessee is found to be shorn of merit. It is rejected as such.

13.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 03.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →