Precious Transport Service, Kochi V. The ITO (TDS), Kochi

ITA 969/COCH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Precious Transport Service, the appellant, contesting an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which dismissed their appeal against an assessment under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The original assessment was dated 24.03.2011. The appellant argued that the impugned order was void as it pertained to an already resolved appeal from 2016. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting procedural errors in handling the appeal's migration to the NFAC, leading to the declaration of the impugned order as null and void.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115455 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member ITA No. 969/Coch/2022 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Precious Transport Service 8/2065, New Road Kottukulam Road Mattancherry, Kochi 682002 [PAN:AADFP6839M] vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS, Kochi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Surendranath Rao, CA Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 21.09.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], dismissing it’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 24.03.2011 for Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by 8 days, which is suitably explained per a sworn affidavit dated 23.11.2023 by Shri Daya Ram Singh, Managing Partner of the appellant-firm. Hearing was, admitting the appeal, accordingly proceeded with. 3. At the outset, it was explained by Sri Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the impugned order is void in law inasmuch as the assessee’s appeal against it’s impugned assessment dated 24.3.2011 (for AY 2004-05) stands already disposed of by the CIT(A)-3, Kochi vide it’s order dated 17.10.2016 (copy on record). That is, the ITANo. 969/Coch/2022 (AY: 2004-05) Precious Transport Servicevs. ITO Page 2 impugned order decides a non-existing appeal, which also explains the assessee’s non-response to the hearing notices before the first appellate authority. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We have, in confirmation of the assessee’s averments, besides the section/s under which the assessment order is passed; its date, also compared the number of the Appeal filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority, and the date of its institution, as indeed the tax demand, to find them in total agreement. The assessee’s appeal stands since disposed of by the first appellate authority on 17/10/2016 and, as it appears, there has occurred an error in the migration of the appeal to the NFAC. The assessee ought to have, rather than not responding, clarified matters to the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order is, nevertheless, null and void. We hold accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on September 11, 2023 on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: September 11, 2023 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.