CENTRIENT PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB V. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

MA 105/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which did not incorporate the directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The AO had passed the order without these directions due to time constraints, as the case was nearing the limitation period. The Tribunal referenced several precedents where similar situations led to the remanding of cases to ensure compliance with DRP directions. The Assessee's Miscellaneous Application pointed out a typographical error in the Tribunal's previous order and argued for the quashing of the assessment order based on various case laws. However, the Tribunal found that there were two possible legal views on the matter, both supported by different judgments, and thus dismissed the Assessee's request for quashing the order, except for correcting the typographical error.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784265 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Anand NVH Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi & Anr, SFR Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr, Fiberhome India Vs. National E Assessment Centre Anr
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DARPAN KIRPALANI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ŵी राजपाल यादव, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM M.A. No. 105/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1201/Chd/ 2024) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Years : 2021-22 ) Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vill: Toansa Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar, Asron S.O. Taunsa, Punjab-144533 बनाम The DCIT/ACIT, Circle 1(1) Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCM4314K अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate and Shri Ajit Tolani राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/10/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dt. 26/03/2025 in ITA No. 1201/Chd/2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22, pointing out certain alleged mistake. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the AO passed the order without incorporating the direction of the DRP. The AO has himself given finding in the assessment order that he has not passed the order as per the direction received from the DRP, it was because the matter was getting time barred and he had to pass the assessment order. 3. In this context the Ld. DR brought the case laws of Delhi Tribunal in case of Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 1005/Del/2022 and we also got strength from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anand NVH Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi & Anr dt. 06/08/2011 in WP(C) 7936/Del/2021. In the case of SFR Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr in WP(C)6484/2021 alongwith ratio decided in the case of Fiberhome India Vs. National E Assessment Centre Anr dt. 15/12/2021 in WP(C) Printed from counselvise.com 2 11609/2021, wherein it ws held that once the assessment order is passed by the AO without taking into consideration and giving effect to all the directions of the DRP the matter should be remanded back to the AO to enable him to pass the order afresh incorporating the DRP direction. 4. Relying on these orders this case was also remanded back to the file of the AO to pass the assessment order for incorporating the direction of the DRP after giving a full and adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard as required by the law. 5. In the present M.A the assessee has brought on record different case laws in which it has been held that if the assessment order is passed without incorporating the direction of the DRP they are required to be quashed. In the M.A, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has brought on record all such case laws. The Ld. Counsel has also filed a detailed written submission on this and argued that keeping in view such case laws, the assessment order should have been quashed. 6. After hearing arguments of the Ld. Counsel alongwith going through the written submission and case laws filed, we are of the considered view that since there are two possible views on this issue and both are supported by Coordinate Bench order as well as High Court judgments. At a time the Bench can take only one view which it thinks more appropriate and more relevant. The Bench has taken one possible view which is also supported by Coordinate Bench order and High court judgment. In such situation pointing out mistake by the assessee on such issue in M.A order does not hold good. 7. In this regard it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the assessment order deserves to be quashed. But here it is important to note that there are two possible views as accepted in different case laws (i) was pronounced in the case of Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) wherein it has been held that in such situation giving the principle of natural justice to the assessee the matter may be remanded back to the AO. Here in this case the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that he had to pass the order without incorporating the direction of DRP because the case was getting barred by limitation so the AO passed the order. Accordingly, the Bench took a view that the assessment order was passed because it was getting time barred by the limitation. Therefore, it should be remanded back to the AO to incorporate the direction given by the DRP in the fresh assessment order to be passed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 8. Another error highlighted by the learned counsel for the Assessee in the Miscellaneous Application is, in fact, a typographical mistake. In paragraph 9, the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer; however, in paragraph 10, due to an inadvertent error, the matter has been stated as remanded to the TPO. 9. It is hereby clarified that this was merely a typographical error. Accordingly, in paragraph 10, the sentence previously stated as “As we have remanded back this case to the file of TPO” shall now be corrected to read as “As we have remanded back this case to the file of AO.” 10. Accordingly the mistake pointed out in the MA as mistake no. 3 is accepted and being corrected. 11. Other mistakes pointed out regarding legal view are not acceptable and they are dismissed accordingly. 12. In the result MA is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- राजपाल यादव क ृणवȶ सहाय (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) उपाȯƗ/VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "