Mangaraj Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar V. ITO(TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar

ITA 15/CTK/2022

AI Insights

Mangaraj Minerals Pvt Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed their single appeal in limine due to the filing of a single appeal for multiple demand notices instead of separate appeals for each quarter as required. The Tribunal recognized the defect in the filing process, especially considering the circumstances during the peak of the COVID pandemic, and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after the assessee rectifies the filing defect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300308 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mangaraj Minerals Pvt Ltd. Plot No.475/2, Sambit Villa, Aiginia, Ghatikia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021 14. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.15/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mangaraj Minerals Pvt Ltd., 475/2, Sambit Villa, Aiginia, Ghatikia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Vs. ITO (TDS) Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AAGCM 0158 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Date of Hearing : 25/01 Date of Pronouncement : 25/01 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld , NFAC, Delhi, dated 21.12.2021 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037972979(1) for the assessment year Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )-1, Bhubaneswar Respondent) K.K.Bal, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR 01/2023 /01/2023 against the order of the ld in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2013- Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ITA No.15/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had filed a single appeal against a Recovery Letter issued by the Assessing Officer in respect of demand for three financial years being 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. It was the submission that multiple appeals were supposed to be filed before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that separate appeals were required to be filed for each of the demand notice for each of the quarters as this related to levy of interest u/s.234E of the Act. It was the submission that as a single appeal had been filed before the ld CIT(A) in place of 10 appeals required to be filed, the ld CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine. It was the submission that the assessee has filed the requisite separate appeals before the ld CIT(A) on 29.9.2022 and the defect in filing the appeals has been cured. It was the prayer that the ld CIT(A) may be directed to dispose the appeals in lieu of the present appeal. It was the submission that adequate opportunity has not been granted by the ld CIT(A) to rectify the defect insofar as the appeal had been filed during the peak of the Covid pandemic. It was the submission that the issues may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to rectify the defect, if any. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that separate appeals had to be filed for each of the quarters. As the assessee had filed a single appeal, the ld CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. ITA No.15/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page3 | 4 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has recognized the factum of the defect in filing of single appeal in respect of multiple demand notices. Having recognized the said defect, it was incumbent upon the ld CIT(A) to grant the assessee adequate opportunities to rectify the defects. In any case, the assessee submits that he has filed separate independent appeals and rectified the defects on 29.9.2022. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to rectify the defect in filing the appeals, if any. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/01/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 25/01/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.15/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Mangaraj Minerals Pvt Ltd., Plot No.475/2, Sambit Villa, Aiginia, Ghatikia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: ITO (TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//