DEC Facility (India) Pvt. Ltd. , Delhi V. WARD 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1859/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8131 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JASPAL SINGH SETHI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Set aside
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1859/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Dec Facility (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1101, Plot No.D-9, Gopal Height, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110 034. PAN-AADCD 8121B Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Jaspal Singh Sethi, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 11.10.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: 2 ITA No.1859/Del/2021 Dec Facility (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT “1. That the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act is against law and facts of the case. 2. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has erred in dismissing the appeal in ‘limine’ without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating that the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act is passed without looking into the mistake apparent from record. 4. (4.1) That the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act is passed without providing any opportunity of being heard and without an opportunity to the appellant to file detailed objections against the additions /variations made in Order / Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4.2 That the order u/s 154 is passed by the CPC Bangalore is not a speaking order and is passed as a mere formality based on a computer software. The order is passed without any application of mind. 5. That the order passed u/s 143(1) making addition / variations of Rs. 34,01,839/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- is based on incomplete and selective information from the return of income and audit report, thereby ignoring important factual information apparent from record and is thus a rectifiable mistake u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the intimation order u/s 143(1) and the rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case.” (B) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee drew our attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned appellate order dated 11.10.2021 of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) commented that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed in limine. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated 3 ITA No.1859/Del/2021 Dec Facility (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the appeal in limine. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the appeal and dismissing the same in limine. He also submitted that the impugned appellate order dated 11.10.2021 of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the Ld. CIT(A) should be directed to pass a fresh appellate order on merits in accordance with law. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted the Ld. CIT(A) be specifically directed to provide opportunity for physical hearing. (B) The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“DR” for short) for Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). (C) It is not in dispute that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine without deciding the issues in dispute on merits. In view of the foregoing, and as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 11.10.2021 of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to pass a fresh appellate order in accordance with law deciding the issues in 4 ITA No.1859/Del/2021 Dec Facility (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT dispute on merits. The assessee will be free to make a request before the Ld. CIT(A) to grant an opportunity for physical hearing, and if such a request is made by the assessee, then the Ld. CIT(A) will take a decision on it having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances. This appeal is decided in accordance with aforesaid directions. (D) This appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This order was already pronounced orally on 24 th February, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 28.02.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28.02.2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI