Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1549 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
07-09-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
15-06-2023
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
23-03-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. No. 256/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 706/MUM/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO (E)-2(3), 6 th floor, Room No. 617, MTNL Telephose Exchange Bldg. Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Vs. Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, T.P.S.-III, Khari Village, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. PAN No. AAICS 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ujjawal Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 16/06/2023 Date of pronouncement : 08/09/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Revenue is seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 19.09.2022 passed in ITA No. 706/Mu/2022 for assessment year 2017-18. In the case of Daryapur Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory v. ACIT (2021) 320 CTR 456 (Bom.), Hon’ble Bombay High court , has held that period of limitation for section 254(2) of the Act would commence from date when affected party got knowledge of decision in question and it would not c date when order was passed. received by the Principal Commissioner of Income ‘the PCIT’) on 25/11/2022 and the miscellaneous application has been filed on 24.03.2023, which being within the pe months from the date of receipt of the order by the PCIT, the Miscellaneous Application is within limitation period as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory (supra) , admitted for adjudication. 2. In the case, the Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that case was selected for impugned order quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the PCIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not authorized to inquiry beyond the scope for the reasons selected under ‘limited scrutiny Application, the Ld. DR submitted that case for ‘complete scrutiny DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has erroneously mentioned in the assessment order that case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. But o DR could not file any evidence to support that case was selected for ‘complete scrutiny’. We Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation the Act would commence from date when affected party got knowledge of decision in question and it would not c date when order was passed. The impugned order of Tribunal was received by the Principal Commissioner of Income ‘the PCIT’) on 25/11/2022 and the miscellaneous application has been filed on 24.03.2023, which being within the pe from the date of receipt of the order by the PCIT, the Miscellaneous Application is within limitation period as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Daryapur Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory (supra) ,hence, admitted for adjudication. the Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. The Tribunal quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the PCIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not authorized to inquiry beyond the scope for the reasons for which the case was limited scrutiny’. Before us, in the Miscellaneous , the Ld. DR submitted that case was actually selected complete scrutiny’ and not under the ‘limited scrutiny DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has erroneously mentioned in the assessment order that case was selected for But on being questioned by the Bench DR could not file any evidence to support that case was selected for . We also note that in the order passed u/s 263 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation 2 M.A No. 256/Mum/2023 the Act would commence from date when affected party got knowledge of decision in question and it would not commence from The impugned order of Tribunal was received by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 (in short ‘the PCIT’) on 25/11/2022 and the miscellaneous application has been filed on 24.03.2023, which being within the period of six from the date of receipt of the order by the PCIT, the Miscellaneous Application is within limitation period as held by the Daryapur Shetkari hence, same is the Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment . The Tribunal in quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the PCIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not authorized to raise which the case was . Before us, in the Miscellaneous actually selected limited scrutiny’. The Ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has erroneously mentioned in the assessment order that case was selected for n being questioned by the Bench, the Ld. DR could not file any evidence to support that case was selected for that in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act , the PCIT has nowhere mentioned that the case was selected for ‘complete scrutiny evidence to support that case was selected by the Assessing Officer for complete scrutiny record in the order of the Tribunal 3. In the result, the Mi Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08 Sd/ (KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 08/09/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation the PCIT has nowhere mentioned that the case was complete scrutiny’. In absence of any documentary evidence to support that case was selected by the Assessing Officer complete scrutiny, we do not find any mistake apparent from in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 08/09/2023. Sd/- KULDIP SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation 3 M.A No. 256/Mum/2023 the PCIT has nowhere mentioned that the case was . In absence of any documentary evidence to support that case was selected by the Assessing Officer e do not find any mistake apparent from scellaneous Application filed by the /09/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
AI Insights
The case involves a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue seeking recall/rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 19.09.2022. The original dispute centered on the classification of the scrutiny type under which the case was selected by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that the case was selected for 'complete scrutiny', whereas the Assessing Officer had recorded it as 'limited scrutiny'. The Tribunal had previously quashed an order passed under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), which had expanded the scope of inquiry beyond the reasons for 'limited scrutiny'. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, noting the absence of any documentary evidence to support the Revenue's claim of 'complete scrutiny'.
