DAKSHIN DAMODAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANKURA MORE, MUCHKHANDA V. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

ITA 901/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2008-09. The primary contention was the incorrect mention of the assessment year and financial year in the notices and the assessment order issued by the AO, which were initially stated as 2012-13 and 2011-12 respectively, instead of 2008-09 and 2007-08. A corrigendum was later issued to correct these errors. However, the Tribunal found that these mistakes were so fundamental that they invalidated the entire assessment process, leading to the quashing of the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25052 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEN SAMADDER
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.901/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2008-09) Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited. Bankura More Muchkhada, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal Vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCD1784A Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranbesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue by : Shri Sailen Samadder, DR Date of hearing: 08.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.02.2024 for the AY 2008-09. 02. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order framed by the ld. AO u/s 14(3)/144/254 of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2015. 03. The facts in brief are that this being the second round before the Tribunal. In the first found vide order dated 23.05.2013, the co- ordinate Bench has restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO in assessee’s cross appeals in ITA No. 432/KOL/2012 filed and the Revenue’s appeals in ITA No. 328/KOL/2012 and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the same as the assessee has given reasonable explanation with regard to non-representation of his case before the Page | 2 ITA No.901/KOL/2024 Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 ld. AO. Accordingly, the assessment order was framed by the ld. AO u/s 14(3)/144/254 of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2015 by stating the assessment year as 2012-13 and financial year as 2011-12 thererin. Thereafter, a corrigendum was brought out dated 25.03.2015, stating therein that in the assessment order wrongly mentioned the assessment order as 2012-13 instead of 2008-09 and similarly, the financial year was mentioned as 2011-12 instead of 2007-08. In the corrigendum it is also stated that the same mistake has occurred in the notices issued as well as notice of demand and notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act. 04. The ld. Authorized Representative vehemently submitted before us when in all the notices, assessment order, penalty notice, demand notice, the assessment year and the financial year has wrongly been mentioned as 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively instead of 2007-08 and 2008-09, then the assessee cannot be attributed any fault in not co-operating and not complying notices before the ld. AO as there was no pending proceeding for that assessment year. The ld. Authorized Representative stated that when the notices were issued mentioning the A.Y. 2012-13 and F.Y. 2011-12 and the same mistake was repeated in all the subsequent notices, the assessment order, demand notice, penalty notice, then it is apparent that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is invalid and have to be quashed. The ld. Authorized Representative prayed before the Bench this was a case of gross negligence and non application of mind on the part of the ld. AO and therefore, the notices issued and assessment framed were invalid and void ab-initio and may kindly be quashed. 05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this was merely a mistake on the part of the AO while issuing the notices in the set aside proceedings to the assessee and also the same mistake occurred in Page | 3 ITA No.901/KOL/2024 Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 the assessment order , penalty notice and demand notice issued, which were corrected by bringing a corrigendum dated 25.03.2015 and therefore, would not lead the invalidation of assessment itself. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceeding before the ld. CIT (A) and has never raised this issue. Therefore, the issue raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that this is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round vide order dated 23.05.2013, passed in the cross appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Revenue as well as by the assessee in ITA No. 328/KOL/2012& 432/KOL/2012 respectively, and the co-ordinate Bench restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication of the matter. However, in the set aside proceedings, the ld. AO issued notice for F.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13. Similarly, the assessment was framed by mentioning wrong financial year as 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. Same mistake occurred in notice initiating penalty proceeding u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the demand notice. Thereafter, the ld. AO brought a corrigendum wherein it has been stated that in the assessment under order and all the notices the assessment year should be read as 2008-09 instead of 2012-13 and previous year should be read as 2007-08 instead of 2011-12. For the sake of ready reference, the corrigendum is extracted below:- “In the assessment order passed under Section 144/254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dtd. 18.03.2015 in the case of M/s Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill (PP Ltd., Bankura More, P.O. Machkhanda, Burdwan-713103 [PAN AABCD1784A], the assessment year was inadvertently written as ‘2012-13’ instead of assessment year ‘2008-09’ and the previous year was inadvertently written as ‘2011-12’ instead of previous year ‘2007-08’. In the notice of demand and in the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) both dated 18.03.2015 the assessment year was inadvertently written as ‘2012-13’ instead of assessment year ‘2008’09. In all the above mentioned order and notices the assessment year should be read as ‘2008-09’ instead of assessment year ‘2012-13’ and the previous year should be read as ‘2007-08’ instead of Page | 4 ITA No.901/KOL/2024 Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 previous year ‘2011-12’. This Corrigendum order should be a part of the assessment order passed under section 144/254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 18.03.2015 and of the demand notice and the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) in the case of the above- mentioned assessee for the assessment year 2008-09.” 07. On perusal of the above corrigendum, it is revealed that there was total non-application of mind and casualness on the part of the ld. AO in issuing notices in the set aside proceedings and the similar mistake has crept in the assessment order, notice initiating penalty proceedings and demand notice. In our opinion the said mistake is not curable u/s 292B of the Act even that the assessee has participated in the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) and the issue was not raised before the ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, the defect in mentioning the financial year and assessment year in the notices and the assessment order is fatal to the proceedings and is not curable. Accordingly, we are inclined to quash the assessment framed by the ld. AO. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 21.01.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "