M/S. JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD, CUTTACK V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

WP(C)/30977/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. JM Mining and Trading Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who faced issues in filing appeals due to the non-uploading of the reassessment order, which prevented them from e-filing their first appeal. This issue was not addressed by the first appellate authority or the Tribunal, leading to the current writ petition. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that the petitioner had several opportunities to present their case but failed to do so adequately. The High Court found that the Tribunal had overlooked a crucial aspect of the petitioner's written submission regarding the non-uploading of the assessment order, which was a significant reason for their inability to e-file the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746708 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JENA
• Keywords: Protective assessment; Reassessment order; Statutory remedy; Substantial question of law; E-file
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30977 of 2024 M/s. JM Mining and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate -versus- The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No. 01. ORDER 17.12.2024 1. Mr. Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client, in effect, has been deprived of statutory remedy twice over as not being able to prosecute first appeal and subsequently appeal before the Tribunal, on merits. This is because the reassessment order was not uploaded. As such his client could not e-file the first appeal. This was not considered by the first appellate authority and followed through by the Tribunal on also impugned order dated 23rd July, 2024. // 2 // Page 2 of 3 2. On query made he submits, his client’s case was said to be protective assessment because the income had also been charged to tax in the assessment of income of the managing director. He seeks interference. 3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, several opportunities were granted but petitioner did not avail of them. At present petitioner has remedy to prefer appeal under section 260-A in Income Tax Act, 1961 on demonstrating that a substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal’s order. 4. On query made Mr. Jena points out from the Tribunal’s order, his client’s written submissions stand reproduced therein. In paragraph 6 his client had clearly stated about failure to upload the assessment order. We have seen that the Tribunal dealt with rival contentions in paragraph 9 of its order. Reasons given by the Tribunal to turn away petitioner are two fold. Firstly, appeals in respect of the substantive assessment have also been filed physically and secondly, in petitioner responding to the notice with detailed written submission, it did not answer the issue of non-filing of appeals in e-format. 5. The Tribunal’s order bears error apparent. Petitioner has demonstrated from reproduction of its written submissions in the order // 3 // Page 3 of 3 that in paragraph 6 therein petitioner had given reason for not being able to e-file on first appeal because of omission to upload the assessment order. Clearly, the Tribunal did not appreciate or glossed over the written submission. 6. Impugned Tribunal order dated 23rd July, 2024 as well as first appellate order dated 30th November, 2023 are set aside and quashed. Petitioner will present its appeal in physical form to opposite party no.2 along with certified copy of this order on or before 6th January, 2025. Said opposite party then will have the option of making possible for petitioner to e-file the appeal contents or otherwise register and number physical form of it, for consideration. On admission of the appeal, said opposite party will deal with it. In event physical form, of appeal is not presented as directed above, impugned order will stand automatically restored. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Jyoti Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 18-Dec-2024 10:31:47 Signature Not Verified "