Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Guwahati V. M/s. Arihant International Limited , Guwahati

ITA 276/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0521 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 276 & 277/Gau/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati.........................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Arihant International Limited.......................Respondent [PAN: AAECA 5555 B] Appearances by: Sh. N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Akkal Dudhwewala, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : July 27 th , 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : August 4 th , 2022 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Years (in short “AY”) 2010-11 & 2011-12 are directed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 12.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 30.03.2014 & 23.11.2015. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.: 276 & 277/Gau/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Arihant International Limited. Page 2 of 5 Assessment Year 2010-11: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment proceedings merely for the want of principles of natural justice, without appreciating that sufficient opportunities were permitted to the assessee company. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment proceedings merely for the want of purported belated service of demand notice and the order impugned by merely two days, even though no prejudice has been put forward nor proved by the assessee company in this regard. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,00,00,000/-by treating the short term capital loss arising from transaction in land as a business loss. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,96,39,503/-on account of bogus business loss, claimed to have been incurred by the Appellant, from trading in future & option. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment proceedings merely for the want of principles of natural justice, without appreciating that sufficient opportunities were permitted to the assessee company. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment proceedings merely for the want of purported belated service of demand notice and the order impugned by merely three days, even though no prejudice has been put forward nor proved by the assessee company in this regard. The assessment proceeding was completed within the time limit under section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A. Nos.: 276 & 277/Gau/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Arihant International Limited. Page 3 of 5 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,64,41,393/-on account of bogus business loss, claimed to have been incurred by the Appellant from trading in future & option. 4. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant appeals are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and referring to the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 75/Gau/2018, ITA No. 105/Gau/2015 & ITA No. 106/Gau/2015 dated 12.07.2019 stated that the revisionary orders passed u/s 263 of the Act for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 dated 21.03.2013 & 25.03.2015 respectively have been quashed by this Tribunal and, therefore, assessment orders passed consequently by the Ld. AO u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2014 for AY 2010-11 and dated 23.11.2015 for AY 2011-12 in direction to order u/s 263 of the Act has no legs to stand on and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 4. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that revisionary proceedings in case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 were carried out twice vide order dated 30.03.2014 and 25.03.2015 and for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 25.03.2015 setting aside the assessment orders and directing for framing afresh as per the directions given in the revisionary orders. In compliance thereto the assessments were framed for AY 2010-11 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on I.T.A. Nos.: 276 & 277/Gau/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Arihant International Limited. Page 4 of 5 30.03.2017 and u/s 143(3)/144/263 of the Act dated 23.11.2015 and for AY 2011-12 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 23.11.2015. We, further, observe that this Tribunal in ITA No. 75/Gau/2018, ITA No. 105/Gau/2015 & ITA No. 106/Gau/2015 dated 12/07/2019 quashed all the three revisionary orders framed u/s 263 of the Act referred above. Since, the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on two occasions for AY 2010-11 & once for AY 2011-12 stand already quashed, all the subsequent proceedings carried out by the Ld. AO framing the assessments and, further, appeals before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal becomes infructuous. 6. The instant appeals at the instance of Revenue are for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12. Perusal of Form no. 36 shows that the Ld. AO has filed single appeal for AY 2010-11 by mentioning the details of two assessment orders framed u/s 263/143(3) and 263/143(3)/144 of the Act. Though the Revenue was required to file two separate appeals for AY 2010-11, however, looking to the fact that post the order of this Tribunal dated 12.07.2019 quashing all the three revisionary orders framed in the case of the assessee, the instant appeal of Revenue in ITA Nos. 276 & 277/Gau/2018 deserves to be dismissed being infructuous as the assessment proceedings carried out on two occasions for AY 2010-11, subsequent to the directions given u/s 263 of the Act and assessment proceedings carried out for Ay 2011-12 in direction to the order u/s 263 of the Act have become infructuous. I.T.A. Nos.: 276 & 277/Gau/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Arihant International Limited. Page 5 of 5 7. In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 276 & 277/Gau/2018 filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous. Kolkata, the 4 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04.08.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati. 2. M/s. Arihant International Limited, 216, Shreemanta Market, A.T. Road, Near Flyover, Guwahati-781 001. 3. CIT(A)-2, Guwahati. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. True copy By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata