Orissa Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar V. PCIT, Bhubneswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 55/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8153 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Orissa State Co Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Jaydev Vatika Square, Ghatikhia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Assessee by Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 21/1031716156(1) passed u/s.263 of the Act 2016-17. 2. Shri Dipak Kumar Swain, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. At the time of the appeal has been posted on multiple occasions of more than nine times IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.55/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Orissa State Co-operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Jaydev Vatika Square, Ghatikhia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Vs. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AAAAO 0096 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dipak Kumar Swain (Adjn. Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT Date of Hearing : 12 /9 Date of Pronouncement : 12/9 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. 1, Bhubaneswar dated 24.3.2021 in Appeal No.ITBA/Rev/F/Rev5/2020 21/1031716156(1) passed u/s.263 of the Act for the assessment year pak Kumar Swain, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. At the time of hearing, ld AR has filed a petition for adjournment. As the appeal has been posted on multiple occasions of more than nine times Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1. Respondent) pak Kumar Swain (Adjn. Application) : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 9/2022 9/2022 ainst the order of the ld Pr. ITBA/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- for the assessment year pak Kumar Swain, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri hearing, ld AR has filed a petition for adjournment. As the appeal has been posted on multiple occasions of more than nine times ITA No.55/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page2 | 4 and there is absolutely no inclination from the side of the assessee in regard to disposal of the appeal, the adjournment application filed by the ld AR is rejected and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 4. It was the submission of ld CIT DR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 19.12.2018. On examination of the assessment records, it was noticed that in the profit and loss account of the society for the year ending 31.3.2016, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.61,67,405/- towards “provision for EPF penalty”. It was the submission that as the said amount was shown as provision, on that ground, ld Pr. CIT had issued a show cause notice. Also on the ground that the amount was in the nature of penalty, the show cause notice had been issued. There was no response from the assessee. It was the submission by ld CIT DR that the notice had been issued, one for compliance on 8.3.2021 and second on 17.3.2021. There was no compliance. Consequently, as the issue was one of wrong application of law, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbar Industries ltd vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that “there can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer. It is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the ITA No.55/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page3 | 4 order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning, it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax”. It was the submission by ld CIT DR that here there was clear incorrect application of law and no further enquiry is required as the incorrect application of law is apparent from the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. In reply, ld AR submitted that he wants a short adjournment and he is unaware of the facts of the present case. 6. We have considered the submissions. As mentioned earlier, this appeal has been posted on multiple times and there is no inclination from the side of the assessee to have the appeal disposed off. This being so, there is no alternative and the appeal is being disposed off. 7. Perusal of the order of the pr. CIT clearly shows that the Pr. CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 of the Act in respect of the provision of EPF penalty as debited by the assessee in its profit and loss account. Apparently, there is incorrect application of law. The Pr.CIT has brought the issue out and in the interest of natural justice, has directed the Assessing Officer to examine and readjudicate the issue afresh. This being so, we find no error in the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act ITA No.55/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page4 | 4 which calls for interference. Consequently, the order of the Pr.CIT passed u/s.263 stands confirmed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/9/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 12/9/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Orissa State Co-operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Jaydev Vatika Square, Ghatikhia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//