Income Tax Officers ,Ward -2(1) , Hyderabad V. Om Prakash Jhakhotia , Hyderabad

ITA 283/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9624 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMKISHORE JHAWAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 144; 143(3); 153A; 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos. 283 & 284/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad Vs Om Prakash Jakhotia, Hyderabad [PAN: ABSPJ3944P] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 17 & 18/HYD/2022 (in ITA Nos.283 & 284/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Om Prakash Jakhotia, Hyderabad [PAN: ABSPJ3944P] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर/Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी/Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee by: Shri Ramkishore Jhawar, AR रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue by: Shri Sunku Srinivas, CIT-DR स ु िवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 29/09/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 29/09/2022 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/Hyd/2022 C.O.Nos. 17 & 18/Hyd/2022 Page 2 of 4 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: Challenging the order(s) dated 09/06/2021 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Shri Omprakash Jakhotia (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Revenue preferred these appeals and assessee preferred the cross objections. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by this common order. 2. At the time of hearing it has been brought to our notice that the Revenue filed these appeals with a delay of 315 days. Though not the learned AR concede the condonation of delay, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 has held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15 March, 2020 till 02 October, 2021 shall be excluded. We, therefore, proceed to hear and decide the appeals on merits. 3. At the outset, learned AR brought to our notice that the assessment made under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the assessment year 2011-12 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012- 13 was quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in ITA Nos. 970 & 971/Del/2021 by a common order dated 21/02/2022. A copy of the order is produced before us and it forms part of record. 4. For the sake of completeness, we deem it just and necessary to produce relevant operative portion of the order dated 21/02/2022 (supra), here under,- 46. It quite clearly comes out that the mention of nature of the order as section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was not a technical mistake or an error which can be cured by resorting to the provisions of section 292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no ITA Nos. 283 & 284/Hyd/2022 C.O.Nos. 17 & 18/Hyd/2022 Page 3 of 4 return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have been made under section 144 of the Act. There is a clear distinction between the two forms of orders i.e. section 143(3) and section 144 and therefore, in the present case, the orders ought to have been passed under section 144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys 2012-13, 2011-12 and 2009-10 do not survive and are liable to be quashed. 5. Though the learned DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, the fact remains that the very assessment for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 stood quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench at the instance of the assessee and, therefore, it is not open for the Revenue to press the departmental appeals. These appeals as well as cross objections have become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, all the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 29 th day of September, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 29/09/2022 TNMM ITA Nos. 283 & 284/Hyd/2022 C.O.Nos. 17 & 18/Hyd/2022 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Om Prakash Jakhotia, 3-6 323, Jakhotia Arcade, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. CIT(Appeals)-29, New Delhi. 4. Pr.CIT(C)-3, ARA Centre, New Delhi. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD