Ganesh Ores Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela V. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

ITA 8/CTK/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7316 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ganesh Ores Pvt Ltd., Manika Towers, LL/2, 3 floor, Civil Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee ag CIT, Sambalpur passed u/s.263 of the Act No.ITBA/Com./F/17/2019 2015-16. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 3. The appeal is time barred by 169 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 21.1.2022, stating the reasons that due to the IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.08/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ganesh Ores Pvt Ltd., Manika Towers, LL/2, 3 rd floor, Civil Township, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur PAN/GIR No.AADCG 2639 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT Date of Hearing : 14 /9 Date of Pronouncement : 14/9 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT, Sambalpur passed u/s.263 of the Act dated /Com./F/17/2019-20/1025663063(1) for the assessment year Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. The appeal is time barred by 169 days. The assessee has filed petition dated 21.1.2022, stating the reasons that due to the Page1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Respondent) P.R.Mohanty, AR : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 9/2022 9/2022 ainst the order of the ld Pr. dated 24.2.2020 in Appeal for the assessment year Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri The appeal is time barred by 169 days. The assessee has filed petition dated 21.1.2022, stating the reasons that due to the ITA No.08/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page2 | 5 havoc of COVID-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed in due time and, therefore, there was delay of 169 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit to this effect. Ld CIT DR did not oppose the condonation of delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 169 days and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the order passed u/s.263 was unsustainable on four grounds. The first is that the order passed u/s.263 was barred by limitation. It was the submission that the assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 28.12.2017 and the order passed u/s.263 is on 24.4.2020. The limitation period for passing the order u/s.263 is 31.3.2020. 5. The second ground is that the order u/s.263 was unsigned. Ld AR drew our attention to pages 5 & 6 of the order of the Pr. CIT to show that same was unsigned. He further drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s.263, which was digitally signed. It was the submission that as the order u/s.263 was unsigned, the same was liable to be quashed. 6. The third ground is that the order was not served on the assessee. In this regard, the assessee was asked to file an affidavit that the order was not served but the assessee was unable to file the affidavit that the order was unserved ITA No.08/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page3 | 5 7. With regard to fourth ground, it was also submitted that the Pr. CIT in para 15 has tried to take protection of the Explanation-2 to Section 263(1). It was the submission that this explanation was w.e.f 1.6.2015 whereas the assessment year involved is 2015-16 and, therefore, the said explanation had no application to the relevant assessment year. 8. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that in respect of issue of limitation an ordinance had been issued by the Finance Ministry under the term “Taxation and Other Laws (Relation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. It was the submission that said ordinance had become the Act. It was the submission that as per para (vi) of the said ordinance, the date of passing order u/s.263 had been extended upto 30.6.2020. The ordinance was issued on 31.3.2020. 9. In respect of issue of non-signing of the order, ld CIT DR placed before us the copy of the original order from the file of the pr. CIT alongwith order sheet. It was the submission that the original order and order sheet was signed. It was the submission that the order passed u/s.263 was liable to be upheld. It was the submission that in respect of non-signing of the order, provisions of section 292B would apply as the same is curable defect. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, we may point out that the provisions of section 292B do not include the word ITA No.08/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page4 | 5 “order”. The term “other proceedings” does include an order. It is also noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilash Devi Burmon & Ors vs CIT, 219 ITR 214 (SC) has categorically held that an order has to be signed. In the said case, the demand notice had been signed but the assessment order had not been signed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessment order has to be signed. In the present case, the order passed u/s.263 is un-signed. Further, the CBDT has issued Circular No.19 /2019 dated 14.8.2019, wherein, it has been categorically held that w.e.f. 1.10.2019 no communication shall be issued by any income-tax authority to the assessee or any other person unless a computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication and the same is signed digitally. The present order u/s.263 is dated 21.4.2020. The circular does apply to the said order as the said order does contain Din Number but does not contain digital signature of Pr. CIT. Just because the original order passed by the pr. CIT and copy of the same is signed and the order sheet is filed, does not make the order passed u/s.263 is valid. Consequently, on the ground that the order passed u/s.263 is unsigned, respectfully following the principles laid down in decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilash Devi Burmon & Or(supra), the order passed u/s.263 stands quashed. Other grounds are not adjudicated ITA No.08/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page5 | 5 as the order is quashed on the ground of non-signing of the order u/s.263 of the Act. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/9/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14/9/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Ganesh Ores Pvt Ltd., Manika Towers, LL/2, 3 rd floor, Civil Township, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-, 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//