ICRA ANALYTICS LIMITED,PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL V. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1916/DEL/2024

AI Insights

ICRA Analytics Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai, which dismissed their appeal as not maintainable without adjudicating on the merits. The primary contention was that the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 19/10/2022, should not have been considered merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B, dated 11/12/2023, as it is an appealable order under section 246A. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and restored the matter to the A.O. for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Electricity Board (2003 ITR (Vol.260) 84)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; UMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 246A

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1916/Del/2024, A.Y.2021-22) ICRA Analytics Ltd. 17th Floor, Infinity Benchmark Plot No. G-1, Block GP, Sech Bhawan, So Salt Lake North 24 Parganas, West Bengal PAN No: AAACO2709B Vs. DCIT Circle-10 (1) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv and Ms. Uma Upadhayay, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai dated 04/03/2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal [AddI/JCIT (A)-5, Mumbai) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in passing the order without giving Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee as not maintainable and not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee relying upon the judgement of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Electricity Board (2003 ITR (Vol.260) 84) which is distinguishable and contrary to the facts of the Assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in holding that the order passed under section 143(1) merges with the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act ignoring the fact that the order passed under section 143(1) of the Act is an appealable order under section 246A of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in making the adjustments in the Intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act ignoring the fact that the adjustments made by the AO are not the permissible adjustments specified under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AddI/JCIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,18,66,817/- made by the AO holding that there is inconsistency in disallowance of amounts as indicated in the Tax audit report and as shown in Income tax return (ITR) filed by the Assessee. 8. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AddI/JCIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,581/- made by the AO under section 43B of the Act holding that there is inconsistency in disallowance of amounts as indicated in the Tax audit report and as shown in Income tax return (ITR) filed by the Assessee. 3 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the same has already been disallowed and taken into account in computing the total income in the ITR, and thus the above action of the AddI/JCIT(A) leads to double taxation of the same amount. 9. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Addl/JCIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,16,564/- holding that there is inconsistency in the amounts as indicated in the Tax audit report and as shown in Income tax return (ITR) filed by the Assessee. (ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed despite the fact that the same has already been taken into account in computing the total income in the ITR, and thus the above action of the AddI/JCIT(A) leads to double taxation of the same amount. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned AddI/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in not providing the TDS credit of Rs. 14,90,070/- by restricting the credit of Tax Deducted at source (\"TDS\") to Rs. 2,29,56,454/- as against the credit of TDS of Rs. 2,44,46,524/- declared by the Assessee in the Income tax Return. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) has been passed by CPC, Bangalore for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 19/10/2022. Aggrieved by the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 19/10/2022, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04/03/2024, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 4 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Assessee as not maintainable without adjudicating the Appeal on merit. Further also submitted that the CPC, Bangalore has also committed error in making the additions/disallowance in mechanical manner without properly verifying he ITR of the Assessee, therefore, sought for restoring the matter to the file of the A.O. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal filed by the Assessee observed as under: - Once the assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act gets merged with the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore after such merger, the intimation order u/s 143(1) does not survive. In the instant case too, an assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act has been passed on 11/12/2023, and therefore, the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 19/10/2022 gets merged with the said assessment order and therefore, the said intimation order does not survive. Since, the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 5 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 19/10/2022 against which the present appeal has been preferred, does not survive under the statue, the appeal against such order is also not maintainable. Therefore, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that this appeal is not maintainable and therefore the same is being dismissed without going into merits of the case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) held that order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act merges with the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provision of law, as the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the order passed u/s 143(1) is an appealable order u/s 246A of the Act. Further considering the fact that the CPC, Bangalore/A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(1) of the Act has not considered the ITR in a proper manner, therefore, we restore the matter to the file of the A.O. for de-novo adjudication of the issue in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 24th October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24/10/2024 R.N, Sr. PS 6 ITA No. 1916/Del/2024 ICRA Analytics Ltd. Vs. DCIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "