Mrs. Usha Devi Agarwalla, Rourkela V. Pr.CIT Cuttack, Cuttack

ITA 117/CTK/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mrs. Usha Devi Agarwalla against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Cuttack, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which directed a re-assessment of certain purchases and unsecured loans in the assessee's accounts for the assessment year 2015-16. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, and the issues were initially considered by the Assessing Officer. However, the Pr. CIT found discrepancies that warranted a re-assessment. The assessee argued that all issues had been previously examined and that the re-assessment was unnecessary. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the availability of an alternate remedy before the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300311 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 arising out of Suo moto writ petition (Civil) No.3/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M 17, Civil Township, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act ITBA/COM/F/17/2020 2. Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K,Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022 petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to COVID IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M- 17, Civil Township, Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.ABIPA 0285A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, Date of Hearing : 14/0 Date of Pronouncement : 14/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 28.4.2020 ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/102699194(1) for the assessment year Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K,Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022 petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to COVID-19 pandemic. For this, reliance was preferred on the Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pr. CIT, Cuttack Respondent) B.R.Panda, AR M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 02/2023 /02/2023 ainst the order of the ld Pr. 28.4.2020 in Appeal No. the assessment year 2015-16. Shri B.R.Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri The appeal is time barred by 718 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit sworn on 1.10.2022. In the petition, it is that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period eliance was preferred on the ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page2 | 4 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 arising out of Suo moto writ petition (Civil) No.3/2020 regarding extension of limitation period for filing the appeal. Ld SR DR did not have any objection for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 718 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed on 29.12.2017 u/s.143(3) of the Act. It was the submission that the issues had been considered in depth by the Assessing Officer when he passed the assessment order. He submitted that the ld Pr. CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act and has directed the AO to redo the assessment in respect of certain purchases shown by the assessee from MCL whereas MCL had confirmed in a reply to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act that they have not made any sales to the assessee. It was the further submission that the accounts of MCL might be erroneous insofar as the assessee has invoices in respect of purchases from MCL. It was the further submission that even the unsecured loans have not been examined. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 is liable to be quashed insofar as all the issues have been examined by the AO. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessment order is bald and non-speaking order. There is no examination on the issues by the AO. There was a reply to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act that the MCL has intimated that there is no transaction was made with the assessee during ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page3 | 4 the relevant assessment year. However, the assessee has produced an invoice of the MCL. The AO has not examined this issue. The Assessing officer in the assessment order does not talk of any verification of the unsecured loans. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 is liable to be upheld. It was the further submission that the consequential order in pursuance to the order passed u/s.263 has already been passed and the assessee is in appeal before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that no prejudice is caused to the assessee on account of the order passed u/s.263 insofar as the alternate remedy is effectively available before the ld CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Without going into the merits in the present case, as our findings could lead to inference being drawn on the merits, especially when the issues are in appeal before the ld CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee insofar as alternate remedy in the form of appeal before the ld CIT(A) against the consequential order passed u/s.143(3)/263 is pending before the ld CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/02/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14/02/2023 ITA No.117/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page4 | 4 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Mrs Usha Devi Agarwalla, M-17, Civil Township, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//