M/s High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi V. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

ITA 21/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi, concerning an assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary contention was the validity and maintainability of the appellate order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which dismissed the assessee's earlier appeal against the assessment order dated 07.11.2016. The Tribunal noted discrepancies regarding the existence of two different assessment orders dated 07.11.2016 and 30.11.2016 for the same proceedings and questioned the filing of two separate appeals by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the first appellate authority for a definitive finding on these issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115478 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEERAMANI
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA No. 21/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 [PAN:AAACH6076L] Vs. Asst. CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2) Kochi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee agitating the appellate order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 17.11.2022, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 07.11.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. At the outset, it was submitted by Shri Veeramani, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee’s appeal before the first appellate authority (i.e., NFAC, Delhi) against it’s assessment for AY 2014-15, stands in fact disposed of, adverting to a copy of the order dated 21.11.2021 by it in the assessee’s case for AY 2014-15. Rather, appeal there-against stands also since disposed of by the Tribunal on 04.08.2022 (in ITA No. 64/Coch/2022), copy of which again stands appended in it’s paper-book (APB pgs. 10-16). At this stage, it was brought to his notice by the Bench that the impugned order is in ITANo. 21/Coch/2023 (AY: 2014-15) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT Page 2 respect of a different appeal (i.e.,CIT(A), Kochi-1–10616/2016-17), instituted on 21.12.2016 and, further, arising from the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 07.11.2016. The appellate order dated 21.11.2021 was in respect of Appeal No. CIT(A), Kochi-1–10283/2016-17, instituted on 19/12/2016 against order u/s. 143(3) dated 30/11/2016. Did the assessee file two appeals against the same order, i.e., even assuming a single assessment? He could not furnish any satisfactory answer. This is surprising as the appeal before the first appellate authority is filed only by the assessee. Further, how could there be two assessment orders, i.e., dated 07.11.2016 (not on record) and 30.11.2016 (which shows the last date of hearing before the Assessing Officer (Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi) as 07.11.2016) in respect of same proceedings? Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR, also could not throw any light in the matter. 3. The question before us therefore is if the impugned order is a valid order and, thus, maintainable in law, or not? The answer, in the peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, lies with the assessee, at whose behest the appeals are filed against the assessment order and the appellate proceedings initiated. Both, the existence of two assessment orders, as also the filing of two appeals, which entails a fee, is bewildering in the least. The presumption in law, though rebuttable, is that all official acts are regularly performed? In fact, we observe that the impugned order, as indeed that dated 22.11.2021, address the same grounds raised by the assessee per its memorandum of appeal (Form 35). 4. Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper that the appeal is restored back to the file of the first appellate authority, who shall issue definite findings on: (a) if the instant appeal, instituted before it on 21.12.2016, is maintainable in view of the appeal instituted on 19.12.2016, since disposed of by it on 22.11.2021; ITANo. 21/Coch/2023 (AY: 2014-15) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT Page 3 (b) where so, decide the issue arising out of the assessment dated 07.11.2016, i.e., to the extent not already decided per the impugned order, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent its case before it. Needless to add, it shall do so in accordance with law and by issuing definite findings of fact. The burden to prove it’s claims, would though be on the assessee. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31 st July, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: July31, 2023 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar,ITAT, Cochin n.p.