FIBERHOME TELECOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES CO.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2112/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 November 2023AY 2018-19Bench: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not complied with the DRP's directions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO to consider the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the final assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine additional evidence and pass a speaking order, but the AO failed to do so.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer properly considered the additional evidence and complied with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Baldevraj & Maneesh Upneja, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-D.R
Hearing: 07.11.2023Pronounced: 07.11.2023

This appeal filed by the assessee is challenging the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

2.

Although, the assessee has raised several grounds, at the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that in this case, learned DRP has admitted certain additional evidences and asked the AO to examine them and pass a speaking order but AO has not done so. Hence, learned Counsel prays that the matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer following the directions of the learned DRP and pass the order accordingly.

Fiberhome Telecommunication Technologies Co. Ltd. vs. ITD 2 3. Per contra, learned DR did not have any objection to this proposition.

4.

Having heard both the parties and perusing the records, we find that the learned DRP in para 3.2.2 of its order has held as under: “3.2.2 Along with the aforesaid submission, the assessee furnished an application for additional evidence vide submission dated 18.04.2022 which was remanded to the AO vide this office letter dated 19.04.2022. Reminders dated 02.05.2022 & 09.05.2022 were also sent to the AO for expediting the remand report. However, no remand report was submitted as directed by this Panel. The Panel, therefore, directs the AO to consider the submission of the assessee dated 18.04.2022 along with the additional evidence and pass a speaking order in respect thereof.”

5.

We note that in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the above directions have not been complied with although, the same is noted therein. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh after duly considering the direction of the learned DRP as above.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2023

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →