M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD V. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

MA 188/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting a penalty notice issued by the Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The core issue raised by the appellant was the non-mentioning of specific charges in the penalty notice, which was argued to be a defect under the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. The Tribunal's initial order dated 23/08/2021 did not address this issue, leading to the filing of the Miscellaneous Applications. The Departmental Representative argued that the appeal had been decided on merits, thus the M.As should be dismissed. However, the Tribunal found that the failure to address the defective notice constituted an error apparent from the record, warranting the recall of the previous order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774809 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH

Judgement Text

"1 M.A No. 189/Del/2021 PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A NO. 188/Del/2021 (A.Y 2008-09) in (in ITA No.3083/Del/2017) M. A NO. 189/Del/2021(A.Y 2009-10) in (in ITA No.3084/Del/2017) M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, 6-3, 1009/1100, BabukhansMillennium Centre, Raj Bhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500082 PAN-AACCP3920F (APPELLANT) vs Addl. CIT Special Range-7, Room No. 211, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi (RESPONDENT)) Applicant by Sh. Sandeep Bansal, CA &Ms.Deepika CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above mentioned Miscellaneous Applicationsare filed in respect of the order dated 23/08/2021 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3083 and 3084/Del/2017. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that order dated 23/08/2021 in ITA Nos. 3083 and 3084/Del/2017 passed without deciding the specific contention raised by the Ld. Assessee's Representative regarding non-mentioning of specific charge in the penalty notice. Further submitted that the Assessee has filed application under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, Date of Hearing 29.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A No. 189/Del/2021 PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT byraising the issue of defective notice and the order of the Tribunal remained silent on the said issue and the said application remained undecided. Therefore, submitted that the same is error apparent from record, thus, sought for allowing the present M.As. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Appeal has been decided on merits after giving detailed findings, therefore, the present M.A cannot be entertained. Thus, sought for dismissal of the M.As filed by the Assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Appeals in ITA Nos. 3083 and 3084/Del/2017 have been filed by the Revenue and the Assessee filed applications under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, by raising the issue of defective notice. The Ld. Assessee's Representative has filed the written submission wherein a specific contention has been urged under the heading of “Charge in Penalty Notice no clear-Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars”. Further, the Assessee has also relied on plethora of Judgments in support of the contention of non-mentioning of specific limb in the penalty notice. 5. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal dated 23/08/2021, the Tribunal neither addressed the issue regarding “defective notice” nor disposed-off the applications filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of the Rules. In our considered opinion, not Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A No. 189/Del/2021 PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT deciding the application filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of the Rules is an error apparent from record. Therefore, we recall the order dated 23/08/2021 passed in ITA No. 3083/Del/2017 and 3084/Del/2017 and the Appeals are restored to its original number. The registry is directed to fix the Appeals for hearing before the regular Bench regular on 22/09/2025. 6. In the result, M.As of the Assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03/09/2025 R.N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A No. 189/Del/2021 PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT Printed from counselvise.com "