ASST. CIT CIRCLE-9(3)(2), MUMBAI V. M/S FUTURE E-COMMERCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

MA 293/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue against the order of the ITAT, which initially contained typographical errors regarding the nature of the appeal and the decision of the CIT(A). The errors were corrected to accurately reflect that the appeal was against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT, upon correcting these errors, reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal due to the invalid notice issued for the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130301 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 274

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 MA No. 293/Mum/2023 ACIT 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A No.293/Mum/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 6530/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) ACIT-9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4 th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited Ground Floor, Knowledge House, Off, Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai – 400 060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCF1008K Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Samual Pitta Respondent by : Rashmi Vyas Date of Hearing 30.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is directed against the order of ITAT vide ITA No. 6530/Mum/2019 dated 29.07.2022. 2. Vide the miscellaneous application the assessee submitted that at para 1 of the order of the ITAT mistakenly it is mentioned that the appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) which in turn arises from the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai passed by the AO u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2012-13 whereas the order P a g e | 2 MA No. 293/Mum/2023 ACIT 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. passed by the ld. CIT(A) arises from the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and not from the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. After perusal of material on record it is noticed that appeal is directed against the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as pointed out by the assesse in this Miscellaneous Application. We find that there is typographical error crept at page 1, para 1 of the ITAT order vide ITA No.6530/Mum/2019 therefore, para no. 1 be read as under: “The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2012-13.” 4. In respect of ground no. 3(ii) of the miscellaneous application filed at page 2, para 3 of the ITAT order it is mentioned that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee instead of that appeal of the assessee is allowed. This is also happened because of typographical error therefore, the same be read: “The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee”. 5. Vide ground no. 3(iii) in the miscellaneous application filed the assesse submitted that at para 10 of the ITAT order it is mistakenly stated as under: “We find merit in the submission of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty since, the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 (1) (c) dated 18 march 2015 was bad in law. Since, we have deleted the penalty on account of invalid notice issued under section under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 18th March 2015, therefore other ground on merit are not require to be adjudicated". However, in the humble opinion of the Applicant, at Page 7, Para 10 of its order, it is mistakenly mentioned that 'In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed' instead of 'the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” We find here it is also typographical error so the same be read as under: P a g e | 3 MA No. 293/Mum/2023 ACIT 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. “Since, we have deleted the penalty on account of invalid notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 18.03.2015 which was bad in law. Since, we have deleted the penalty on account of invalid notice therefore other ground on merit are not required to be adjudicated. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Aby T Varkey) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 16.08.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.