Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 19226 (ITAT-PATNA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
17-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
1998-1999
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 Assessment Years: 1991-92,1992-93,1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999- 00, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, Anirudh Prasad…….………………………………………..…..........……….Appellant C/o M/s ABDICO, Chartered Accountants, 1C, Anand Towers, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. [PAN: AECPP8298R] vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna...............................………........……...…..…..Respondent M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Assessment Years: 1997-98, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00 Anirudh Prasad (HUF).………………………………………..…..........……….Appellant C/o M/s ABDICO, Chartered Accountants, 1C, Anand Towers, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. [PAN: AADHA3623A] vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna...............................………........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 07, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : March 17, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The above captioned miscellaneous applications have been filed by the assessee wherein it has been stated that the Tribunal while passing the composite order dated 26.07.19 passed in ITA No.44/Pat/2015, ITA No.46 to 48/Pat/2015 & ITA Nos.39 to M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 2 42/Pat/2015, ITA No.44 to 47/Pat/2016 has made mistakes. The contents of the relevant part of the miscellaneous applications are as under: “2. The appellant respectfully draws the kind attention of the Hon'ble members of the bench to the fact that the appellant for clarity submitted at the time of hearing on 28.06.2019 in writing the details of cases coming up for hearing since August 2016 to date are as under: - In the status of HUF ITA No. 43/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1997-1998 relating to appeal against order U/s. 143(3) ITA No. 44/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1995-1996 - do - ITA No. 45/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1996-1997 - do - ITA No. 46/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1998-1999 - do - ITA No. 47/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1999-2000- do - In the status of Individual ITA No. 39/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1991-1992 relating to appeal against order U/s. 143(3) ITA No. 40/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1992-1993 - do - ITA No. 41/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1994-1995- do - ITA No. 42/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1997-1998 - do - ITA No. 48/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1998-1999 - do - ITA No. 49/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1999-2000- do - Penalty appeal in the status of Individual ITA No. 44/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1991-1992 relating to appeal against order U/s. 271(1)(c) ITA No. 46/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1992-1993 - do - ITA No. 47/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1994-1995 - do - ITA NO. 48/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1997-1998 - do - When both the status are different the PAN are also different. The PAN of individual capacity is AECPP8298R and the PAN of HUF capacity of Anirudh Prasad Alias Sadhu Yadav in HUF capacity should be different. The PAN as allotted is AADHA3623A. But all the orders were passed only with reference to PANAECPR8298R. Therefore, the first M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 3 infirmity in the order as noticed by the appellant is that both the individual and HUF the orders are passed with reference to PAN AECPP8298R (Ind.). Thus the mistakes are apparent in the order as passed by the Hon'ble Bench. And as such the mistakes are rectifiable U/s. 254(2) of the Act.” 2. The instant miscellaneous application shows that the Tribunal made an apparent mistake regarding the PAN number of the assessee. These appeals are pertaining to two distinct assessees under different status i.e. individual PAN: AECPP8298R) and the other is HUF (PAN: AADHA3623A). A total of 15 cases were decided on the same date relating to two different assessees including penalty orders. While deciding the case by the Tribunal in respect of the HUF, the PAN was written as AECPP8298R instead of AADHA3623A. The assessee has prayed that clerical error in the order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.19 by rectified by correctly mentioning the PAN of the HUF. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object to such prayer made by the assessee. 4. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and examining the records, find that there is indeed an apparent mistake in the Tribunal’s order dated 26.07.19 passed in ITA No.44/Pat/2015, ITA No.46 to 48/Pat/2015 & ITA No.44 to 47/Pat/2016 in respect of PAN of the assessee and HUF. Accordingly, the error is rectified and the correct PAN of the HUF is AADHA3623A and is replaced in place of incorrect PAN: AECPP8298R in the following cases: In the status of HUF ITA No. 43/Pat/2015 for the AY: 1997-1998 ITA No. 44/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1995-1996 ITA No. 45/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1996-1997 ITA No. 46/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1998-1999 ITA No. 47/Pat/2016 for the AY: 1999-2000 M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 4 5. With the above rectification, the miscellaneous application on this point is allowed to the above extent. 6. The other issue is relating to the jurisdiction in all 15 cases of the appeals. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.19 passed in ITA Nos.39 to 42/Pat/2015 decided the grounds of appeal as common ground and the Tribunal pleased to dismiss the ground without looking into the facts of the case. 7. The ld. DR stated that the issue had been adequately dealt with in para no.14 of the Tribunal’s order passed in ITA Nos.39 to 42/Pat/2015 dated 26.07.19 wherein the detailed findings were given as under: 14. This issue has been dealt with in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1998-99 & 1999-2000 in ITA Nos.48 &49/Pat/2015 vide our order of even date. The relevant observations are as under: \"4. Ground No.2 is common to both the appeals that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the fact that the conditions of section 127(1) was not followed by the department, so any order passed without proper jurisdiction is void ab-initio and have no legal effect. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that no order has been passed u/s.127 of the Income Tax Act for transfer and centralisation of these relevant appeals and said approval is mandatory to be followed. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that without following procedure and conditions laid down in Section 127(1) of the Act, the impugned assessment orders are to be considered as passed without having proper jurisdiction and thus, same are void ab-initio having no legal effect against the assessee. Therefore, assessment orders may kindly be quashed only on this sole legal reason. 6. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted a copy of the order dated 15.7.1999 passed u/s.127 of the Act, wherein, cases of 79 assessees/entities have been transferred for the purpose of co- ordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment, copy of which was also provided to the assessee's representative before the Bench. 7. On being asked by the Bench, ld A.R., in all fairness, submitted that till date, the assessee has no information regarding this order passed u/s.127 of the Act dated 15.7.1999. Therefore, this legal ground is raised and agitated by the assessee. M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 5 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the department has complied with the mandatory conditions and procedures laid down in section 127(1) of the Act for centralising and transferring the case for the purpose of coordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment. Therefore, this ground of the assessee being devoid on merits is dismissed for both the assessment years.\" 15. Following the precedent, we dismiss this ground of assessee for all the four assessment years under consideration.” 7.1 Similarly, in ITA Nos.44, 46-48/Pat/2015 & ITA No.43/Pat/2015 order dated 26.07.19, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 12 onwards which are as under: “12. Now, the next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to the fact the department has not followed the conditions of section 127(1) of the Act. 13. This issue has been dealt with in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1998-99 & 1999-2000 in ITA Nos.48 &49/Pat/2015 vide our order of even date. The relevant observations are as under: \" 4. Ground No.2 is common to both the appeals that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the fact that the conditions of section 127(1) was not followed by the department, so any order passed without proper jurisdiction is void ab-initio and have no legal effect. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that no order has been passed u/s.127 of the Income Tax Act for transfer and centralisation of these relevant appeals and said approval is mandatory to be followed. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that without following procedure and conditions laid down in Section 127(1) of the Act, the impugned assessment orders are to be considered as passed without having proper jurisdiction and thus, same are void ab-initio having no legal effect against the assessee. Therefore, assessment orders may kindly be quashed only on this sole legal reason. 6. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted a copy of the order dated 15.7.1999 passed u/s.127 of the Act, wherein, cases of 79 assessees/entities have been transferred for the purpose of co- ordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment, copy of which was also provided to the assessee's representative before the Bench. 7. On being asked by the Bench, ld A.R., in all fairness, submitted that till date, the assessee has no information regarding this order M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 6 passed u/s.127 of the Act dated 15.7.1999. Therefore, this legal ground is raised and agitated by the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the department has complied with the mandatory conditions and procedures laid down in section 127(1) of the Act for centralising and transferring the case for the purpose of coordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment. Therefore, this ground of the assessee being devoid on merits is dismissed for both the assessment years.\" 14. Following the precedent, we dismiss this ground of assessee for all the four assessment years under consideration. 7.2 Similarly, in ITA Nos.48&49/Pat/2015 dated 26.07.19, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 4 onwards which are as under: \"4. Ground No.2 is common to both the appeals that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the fact that the conditions of section 127(1) was not followed by the department, so any order passed without proper jurisdiction is void ab-initio and have no legal effect. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that no order has been passed u/s.127 of the Income Tax Act for transfer and centralisation of these relevant appeals and said approval is mandatory to be followed. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that without following procedure and conditions laid down in Section 127(1) of the Act, the impugned assessment orders are to be considered as passed without having proper jurisdiction and thus, same are void ab-initio having no legal effect against the assessee. Therefore, assessment orders may kindly be quashed only on this sole legal reason. 6. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted a copy of the order dated 15.7.1999 passed u/s.127 of the Act, wherein, cases of 79 assessees/entities have been transferred for the purpose of co- ordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment, copy of which was also provided to the assessee's representative before the Bench. 7. On being asked by the Bench, ld A.R., in all fairness, submitted that till date, the assessee has no information regarding this order passed u/s.127 of the Act dated 15.7.1999. Therefore, this legal ground is raised and agitated by the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the department has complied with the mandatory conditions and procedures laid down in section 127(1) of the Act M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 7 for centralising and transferring the case for the purpose of coordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment. Therefore, this ground of the assessee being devoid on merits is dismissed for both the assessment years.\" 7.3 Similarly, in ITA No.44 to 47/Pat/2016 dated 26.07.19, the Tribunal discussed the issue in paragraphs 14 onwards which are as under: “14. After hearing both the sides and perusing the materials available on record and the orders of authorities below, we find that ground no.2 taken by the assessee has already been decided in the case of assessee in ITA Nos.48 &49/Pat/2015 vide our order of even date. The relevant observations are as under: \" 4. Ground No.2 is common to both the appeals that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the fact that the conditions of section 127(1) was not followed by the department, so any order passed without proper jurisdiction is void ab-initio and have no legal effect. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that no order has been passed u/s.127 of the Income Tax Act for transfer and centralisation of these relevant appeals and said approval is mandatory to be followed. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that without following procedure and conditions laid down in Section 127(1) of the Act, the impugned assessment orders are to be considered as passed without having proper jurisdiction and thus, same are void ab-initio having no legal effect against the assessee. Therefore, assessment orders may kindly be quashed only on this sole legal reason. 6. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted a copy of the order dated 15.7.1999 passed u/s.127 of the Act, wherein, cases of 79 assessees/entities have been transferred for the purpose of co- ordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment, copy of which was also provided to the assessee's representative before the Bench. 7. On being asked by the Bench, ld A.R., in all fairness, submitted that till date, the assessee has no information regarding this order passed u/s.127 of the Act dated 15.7.1999. Therefore, this legal ground is raised and agitated by the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the department has complied with the mandatory conditions and procedures laid down in section 127(1) of the Act for centralising and transferring the case for the purpose of M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 8 coordinated and consolidated investigation and assessment. Therefore, this ground of the assessee being devoid on merits is dismissed for both the assessment years.\" Following the above quoted findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we dismiss ground no.2 of assessee for all the four assessment years under consideration. 8. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and examining the records, find that this issue has already been considered by the Tribunal while passing the orders as stated in our preceding paragraphs. Since, the Tribunal has already been adjudicated the issue, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the existing orders of the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not like to interfere with the instant issue of jurisdiction raised by the assessee through the present miscellaneous application. Accordingly, this ground of miscellaneous application is rejected. 9. In view of the above, the rectification in respect of PAN of the HUF is allowed and other ground relating to the jurisdictional transfer u/s 127 of the Act is dismissed as it has already been adjudicated. 10. In terms of the above, all the miscellaneous applications are partly allowed. Kolkata, the 17th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 17.03.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Anirudh Prasad 2. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna 3.CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), M.A. Nos.65 to 74/Pat/2019 & M.A. Nos.75 to 79/Pat/2019 Anirudh Prasad 9 //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "
AI Insights
The case involves miscellaneous applications filed by Anirudh Prasad, addressing errors in the Tribunal's previous orders concerning the incorrect PAN used for the HUF status and issues related to jurisdictional transfer under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the clerical error in the PAN and corrected it in their records. However, regarding the jurisdictional transfer, the Tribunal referenced their earlier decisions, affirming that the proper procedures were followed by the department in transferring and centralizing the cases for investigation and assessment.
