Cigniti Technologies Limited , Hyderabad V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-1(2) , Hyderabad

ITA 355/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5954 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M.V. JOSHI P. MURALI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y 2017-18 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 30.06.2021 in case No.ITBA/ AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1033901988(1) involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA No.355/Hyd/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Cigniti Technologies Limited, Hyderabad. PAN : AABCC1969J. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V. Joshi for Sri P. Murali Revenue by : Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai. Date of hearing: 15.12.2021 Date of pronouncement: 21.12.2021 ITA No.355/Hyd/2021 2 2. The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is found / barred 4 days delay. It has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Mr. Sai has taken a very strong exception at the outset that the assessing authority in the instant case has framed the impugned assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act; which infact, is an appealable order u/s 246A(1)(a) than before the tribunal under section 253 r.w.s. 254 of the Act. He therefore sought to reject the assessee’s instant appeal for the foregoing technical reason that once the assessing authority passed its assessment thereby making an arms length price adjustment in light of a draft assessment order only u/s 144C(1), the remedy of appeal does not lie before the tribunal. 4. We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant technical argument. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer had passed his draft assessment order on 02.04.2021 under sec 144C(1) of the Act i.e., when the second wave of covid pandemic 2019’s lockdowns were at its peak. We note from a perusal of the assessee’s paper books that not only it filed its objections by e-mail but also had sent the hard copies to the Dispute Resolution Panel (Headquarters at Bangalore) by post on 30.04.2021 which could be ultimately delivered on 15.06.2021 only because of lockdowns imposed in Hyderabad as well as Bangalore. Mr Sai’s next argument in light of these facts is that the statutory time ITA No.355/Hyd/2021 3 limit for filing objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel is 30 days only u/s 144C(2) of the Act and that the assessee’s objections find / received on 15.06.2021 hardly deserve to be taken note of by the learned lower authorities since not accompanied by the condoned objection(s), we notice that the same goes contrary to the hon’ble apex court’s directions dt.23.09.2021 in M.A 665 of 2021 in “IN RE: Cognizable For Extension Of Limitation” making it clear that limitations prescribed under various statutes, the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 stands excluded for al intents and purpose thereby exercising its jurisdiction vested under the Constitution of India. We therefore observe that the learned lower authorities ought to have decided assessee’s objections preferred before the “DRP” followed by the consequential assessment 5. Next comes the equally important question as to whether we ought to adjudicate upon the assessee’s various substantive grounds or the same deserve to be restored to the “DRP”. We are of the opinion in the foregoing factual backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned DRP decides the assessee’s objections as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly. It shall very much open to the assessee to file all the relevant details and evidence before the learned panel as per law; if so advised. Ordered accordingly. ITA No.355/Hyd/2021 4 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21 st December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21 st December, 2021. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 M/s. Cigniti Technologies Limited, C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order