BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2717/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bharti Telemedia Limited appealing against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed their appeal in limine concerning a reassessment order for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the erroneous belief by the CIT(A) that the appellant had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, which was not the case. The appellant argued that they had opted for a different appeal related to an order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the same assessment year. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's arguments and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470270 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe; Validity of assessment
• Section: 147; 143(3); 250; 37

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 2717/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Bharti Telemedia Limited Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4 (2) New Delhi PAN No: AADCB0147R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Jain, Advocate Sh. Shivam Gupta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM The aforetitled appeal arising out of the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred in short as NFAC] by which the application filed by the Assessee/ appellant against the order dated Page 2 of 7 30.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer [(for the sake of convenience, here in after referred in short as Ld. AO)] for A.Y. 2015- 16. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ex-parte order dated 24.08.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre ('NFAC/CIT(A)'), under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dismissing the appeal in limine is patently erroneous and bad in law. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act erroneously holding that the appellant has opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 ('the VSV Act'). 1.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had not opted for settlement of the aforesaid appeal filed against reassessment order passed under section 147 under the VSV Act [but had opted for settlement of an altogether different appeal filed against order dated 06.12.2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Act for the same assessment year). Page 3 of 7 1.3. That the impugned ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal, that too, without considering the written submissions filed and providing any opportunity of being heard (physically or video conferencing mode) to the appellant, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set- aside/ reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE-ON MERITS Re: Validity of assessment order 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2.1. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act was barred by limitation prescribed in first proviso to that section. 2.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act was also barred by third proviso to section 147 of the Act. 2.3. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that reassessment proceedings initiated on mere reappraisal review of existing facts Page 4 of 7 and on change of opinion, without there being any fresh tangible material, is invalid. 2.4 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reassessment proceedings having been initiated in the absence of any valid 'reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment, is illegal and bad in law. 2.5. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reassessment proceedings having been initiated without proper sanction under section 151 of the Act, is illegal and bad in law. Re: Disallowance of provision for interest on Annual license fee 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting disallowance of Rs.40,60,00,000 made in respect of provision for interest on disputed/delayed payment of Annual License Fee under section 37 of the Act. 3.1. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the aforesaid provision was in the nature of an ascertained/crystalized liability, created on the basis of notice of demand received from Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India (\"MIB'). 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that mere contesting of interest liability which stood crystallized during the relevant year, could not be the basis for disallowance of claim. Page 5 of 7 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee has filed the condonation application for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it appears that the instant appeal filed belated i.e. by delay of 580 days (as on 24.05.2024) and for which assessee/ appellant submitted detailed application for condonation application supported with affidavit. We perused the same and heard on this issue and after gone through the reason’s mentioned in application, we inclined to decide the case on its merit alone and not on technicalities to ensure cause of justice and condone the delay in question in filing instant appeal u/s. 253 (5) of the Act. 5. Heard the rival submission and carefully perused the material on record. 6. At the outset, reiterating the grounds of appeal the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erroneously held that the assessee/ appellant has opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and ignored this material fact that the he had opted for settlement for the same in appeal pending with the learned CIT(A) Page 6 of 7 in this case against reassessment order passed u/s. 147 and in doing so, the learned CIT(A) discussed his appeal without considering the written submissions filed and not provided proper opportunities of being heard and consequently assessee/ appellant deprived of hearing. 7. After hearing, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find force in the contention of the Counsel, therefore, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to restore the issue to the files of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 31st January, 2025 . Sd/- Sd/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:31/01/2025 NEHA, Sr. PS "