Jain Carrying Corporation, Bikaner V. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

ITA 361/JODH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3341 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 250; 200A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JJUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 361/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jain Carrying Corporation Jain House, Rani Bazar, Bikaner [PAN: AAAFJ 9388 G] (Appellant) Vs. ACIT Circle-01, Bikaner (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Respondent by Sh. A. S. Nehra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 24/07/2023 [here in after ‘NFAC’ ] for assessment year 2013-14which in turn arise from the order dated 05.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Bikaner. I.T.A. No. 361/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 7 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:- Sub:Response to Form for Communicating Defects to Appellant in an Appeal Against Order U\s 250 AY 2013-14. I am responding to the Form for Communicating Defects to Appellant in an Appeal Against Order U\s 250, raised in connection with my appeal against Order U\s 143(3). I bring to your attention that the Tribunal's order was communicated to me on 29/07/2023(Which is also mentioned in the designated column of the form 36), which initiated the 60-day response period. I promptly dispatched my response by speed post on 27-09-2023, well within the stipulated timeframe. The attached speed post receipt serves as conclusive evidence of my timely compliance with the prescribed deadline. I am dismayed to note that the Tribunal has raised the issue of Order U\s 200A (234E), which I maintain is inapplicable to my case. This order, in my considered opinion, falls outside the purview of my appeal. I have previously presented a detailed rationale to support this position. In light of the aforementioned, I respectfully request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision and dismiss the Form for Communicating Defects to Appellant in an Appeal Against Order U\s 250. I am confident that my response to the Tribunal's order was timely and that Order U\s 200A (234E) is not relevant to my appeal.” 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. I.T.A. No. 361/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 3 2.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 07 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus, the delay of 07 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding adhoc disallowance of Transportation expenses Rs. 25,83,990/-. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding adhoc disallowance of HRA and Conveyance allowance Rs. 3,51,263/-. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 15,33,876/- on account of Truck, loader and machine expenses on the lump-sum basis. 4. The bench noted that this appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of an order passed by the ld. CIT(A) which in terms arises for assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 05.12.2018. The assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) before this tribunal and that appeal of the assessee has been decided in the case of M/s Jain Carrying Corporation vs. PCIT in ITA No. 134/Jodh/2018 dated 18.03.2024 quashing the order of ld. PCIT. Thus, I.T.A. No. 361/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4 in the light of these facts placed before us by the ld. AR of the assessee we note that the order passed by ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) on account of order passed u/s. 263 becomes infructuous. As the order based upon which the appeal is arising has been quashed the present appeal become infructuous and the appeal filed by the assessee be treated as allowed for statistical purpose. In nature in terms of these observations, the appeal filed by the assessee is considered as infructuous and the same is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ganesh Kumar, PS (On Tour) Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order I.T.A. No. 361/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 5 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order