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

आदेश/ORDER

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

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)].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Order pronounced on 03.05.2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(KRINWANT SAHAY) (A.D.JAIN ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANTMEMBER “Poonam”

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar