Samanta Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack V. ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack

ITA 385/CTK/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Samantaraj Films Pvt Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1994-95. The primary contention was regarding the incorrect recording of facts by the CIT(A) in his order, particularly concerning the sections under which the original assessments were made. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erroneously stated that the assessments were made under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, whereas they were actually made under sections 143(3) and 144. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to restore the issues to the CIT(A) for a detailed re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300324 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2010
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Samantaraj Films Pvt Ltd.,Rajabagicha, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by : Shri Per Bench These are the ld CIT(A), Cuttack, all for the assessment years 2. Shri Jagabandu Sahoo, Sr. Adv/Miss Kajal Sahoo, Adv appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld Sr AR that against the orders of the l the assessee had preferred appeals to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had originally disposed off these appeals vide its order dated 13.5.2011. It was the submission that as the issue of reopening had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal at that p IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/20 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994 Samantaraj Films Pvt Ltd.,Rajabagicha, Cuttack Vs. ACIT, Range Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AAHCS 0496 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent : Shri Jagabandu Sahoo, Sr. Adv/Miss Kajal Sahoo, Adv. Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Date of Hearing : 2/02 Date of Pronouncement : 2/02 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against , Cuttack, all dated 24.8.2010 in Appeal No assessment years 1987-88 to 1994-95, respectively. Jagabandu Sahoo, Sr. Adv/Miss Kajal Sahoo, Adv appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld Sr AR that against the orders of the l the assessee had preferred appeals to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had originally disposed off these appeals vide its order dated 13.5.2011. It was the submission that as the issue of reopening had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal at that point of time, the assessee had filed appeals to the Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CTK/2010 88 to 1994-95 ACIT, Range-2, Respondent) Jagabandu Sahoo, Sr. Adv/Miss Kajal Sahoo, Adv. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR 2/2023 2/2023 filed by the assessee against the common order of in Appeal Nos.0093/2010-11 95, respectively. Jagabandu Sahoo, Sr. Adv/Miss Kajal Sahoo, Adv appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld Sr AR that against the orders of the ld CIT(A), the assessee had preferred appeals to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had originally disposed off these appeals vide its order dated 13.5.2011. It was the submission that as the issue of reopening had not been adjudicated by oint of time, the assessee had filed appeals to the ITA Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 Page2 | 4 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Cuttack and vide order in ITA Nos.52 to 59/2011 dated 31.7.2019, the Hon’ble High Court had restored the issue to the file of the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the issue in the line with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. The order of the Hon’ble High Court was received in ITAT, Cuttack on 28.3.2022 and the appeals were posted for hearing on 26.7.2022, 29.9.2022, 11.10.2022, 15.12.2022 and again today i.e. on 2.2.2023. Today when the matter was called for hearing, ld Sr counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of the CIT(A), in para 5, the ld CIT(A) has mentioned that the original orders in respect of assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 & 1992-93 as also 1994-95 were passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. It was the submission that the original orders for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 had been passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.2.1992 and 16.8.1994, respectively. It was the submission that for the assessment year 1992-93, original assessment had already been completed u/s.144 of the Act on 16.8.1994 and for the assessment year 1994-95 on 26.11.1996. It was thus the submission that the recording of the facts in the order of the ld CIT(A) itself was erroneous. Ld AR further took us through the order of the ld CIT(A) to submit that he has not considered the arguments of the assessee that the reassessment has been done beyond the four years period and there is no recording that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment. It was the ITA Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 Page3 | 4 submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was non-speaking order and bald order and the assessment must be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after recording the correct facts. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the orders which are being mentioned by the ld AR are not available on record. Ld Sr Counsel of the assessee has filed all the relevant assessment orders passed u/s.143(3) and u/s.144 in respect of the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Admittedly, the intimations passed u/s. 143(1)(a) have not been filed. It was the submission by ld Sr DR that he has no objection to the issues being restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for recording all the correct facts and proper adjudication of the appeals. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para 5 of the orders of ld CIT(A) categorically shows that he has wrongly recorded that intimation have been passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, whereas, the facts shows that scrutiny assessment and exparte assessment have been done for many of the years. Further, on perusal of paras 5.2 to 5.6 of the order of the ld CIT(A) does not give any reasons for the specified adjudication. This being so, we find that the submission by ld Sr Counsel is on right footing and issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication on merits and passing a speaking order after recording the correct facts. Ld CIT(A) shall keep in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court referred (supra) when adjudicating the issues. ITA Nos.383 to 390 /CTK/2010 Assessment Years : 1987-88 to 1994-95 Page4 | 4 6. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/02/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 02/02/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Samantaraj Films Pvt Ltd.,Rajabagicha, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Range-2, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//