The ACIT Ratlam, Delhi V. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur

MA 18/Ind/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the ACIT, Ratlam as the applicant and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandsaur as the respondent. The Revenue sought recall/modification of the ITAT's order which had remanded the matter back to CIT(A)-NFAC for adjudication on merit. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order (Order-2) was mistakenly passed as the appeal was already disposed of by CIT(A), Ujjain (Order-1). The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that Order-2 was non-est and the ITA filed against it should be dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127191 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) MA No. 18/Ind/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 234/Ind/2021) Assessment Year: 2004-05 ACIT, Ratlam बनाम/ Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Mandsaur (Applicant/Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) PAN: AAAAK 4284 B Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Assessee by Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, AR Date of Hearing 09.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 26.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: This Misc. Application u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 is preferred by Revenue seeking recall / modification of the Order dated 25.02.2022 of ITAT, Indore Bench in ITA No. 234/Ind/2021 for assessment-year 2004- 05 by which the assessee’s appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC for adjudication on merit. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Ld. DR submits a peculiar feature in this case. He submits that the ACIT, Ratlam passed assessment-order dated 24.12.2009 u/s 144 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti MANo.18/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2004-05 Page 2 of 4 act, against which the assessee instituted appeal on 28.01.2010 to CIT(A), Ujjain. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A), Ujjain fixed assessee’s appeal for hearing on 29.01.2013 wherein Mr. Sunil Mehta, CA, represented the assessee. This appeal was disposed of by Ld. CIT(A), Ujjain through appeal-order dated 29.01.2013 (Order-1). The entire process was conducted through manual hearing. However, after introduction of faceless appeal scheme, the same appeal was somehow again fixed for hearing in a faceless manner wherein it was dismissed by CIT(A)-NFAC vide order dated 01.10.2021 (Order-2) for the reason of non-presence by assessee. The assessee filed next appeal to ITAT against the Order-2, whereupon the ITAT remanded the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. In short, Ld. AR submits that the revenue has mistakenly re-disposed of the assessee’s appeal vide Order-2 though the matter stood already closed by Order-1, copies of both orders are being placed before us. Thus, according to Ld. DR, Order-1 was a valid and pre-existing appeal-order and in this scenario the Order-2 should be treated as non-est being mistakenly passed. The necessary consequence of this, the Ld. DR submits, would be that the ITA No. ITA No. 234/Ind/2021 filed by assessee against Order-2 deserved to be dismissed. Ld. DR prays to order accordingly. 4. Ld. AR submits that the assessee was not aware of Order-1 having been passed by the revenue. However, since the assessee was aware of Order-2 only, it filed appeal against such order. 5. After a careful consideration, we find that the ITA No. 234/Ind/2021 was against Order-2 which is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that Order-2 is a mistakenly passed order and cannot be taken congnizance of when the Order-1 was already and legally existing. Therefore, we find merit in this Misc. Application. Being so we are inclined to accept this Misc. Application and modify our order dated 25.02.2022 in ITA No. 234/Ind/2021 to the effect that the said ITA is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, this Misc. Application is allowed. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti MANo.18/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2004-05 Page 3 of 4 Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 26/12/2022. Order pronounced in the open court on ....../....../2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore दनांक /Dated : 26.12..2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore 1. Date of taking dictation 12.12.22 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 12.12.22 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 12.12.22 4. Date on which the approved draft is placed before other Member 12.12.22 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti MANo.18/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2004-05 Page 4 of 4 8. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. Date of dispatch of the Order