PORTESCAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 2230/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Portescap India Private Limited, the appellant, contesting an order from the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, which initially processed their tax return and raised certain demands. These demands were related to disallowances of notional rent, re-measurement benefit on a defined plan, and deferred tax. The appellant filed a rectification petition under Section 154, which led to the demands being wiped out. However, the CIT(A) upheld the demands in their appellate order under Section 250. The Tribunal, after reviewing the rectification order and the submissions, concluded that the demands were no longer valid and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474463 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDANI SHAH; KINJAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 250; 154; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.2230/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2019-20) Portescap India Private Limited, Unit No.2, SDF 1, Seepz Sez, Andheri East Mumbai – 400 096 PAN : AAACK4896K vs Centralized Processing Centre Bangalore 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahlli, Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 100 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Chandani Shah &Shri Kinjal Patel Respondent by : Shri. Krishna Kumar, CIT Date of hearing : 14/11/2024 Date of pronouncement : 19/11/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A)-4, Bengaluru [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2019-20,date of order29.02.2024. The impugned 2 ITA No.2230/Mum/2024 M/s Portescap India Private Limited orderwas emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru(in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 28/03/2021. 2. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The CPC had raised the demand related to disallowance of notional rent – Rs.4,53,046/-; disallowance of re-measurement benefit on defined plan – Rs.31,69,282/- and deferred tax amount to Rs.16,82,483/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee also filed a rectification petition under section 154 related to rectification of demands as per section 143(1) of the Act. The rectification process was completed, as a result the demandsraised U/s 143(1) was wiped out vide order dated 15/06/2021 by the order U/s 143(1)/ 154 of the Act. On the other hand, the appeal was instituted by the assessee by challenging the order U/s 143(1) on 28/03/2021 was duly processed and exparte order was passed. Finally, the appeal was partly allowed.The Ld.AR filed a written submission which is kept in record. We find the order U/s 143(1)/154 of the Act is annexed in APB pages 268 to 292. The ld. AR stated that in the rectification order all the demands were squared off and there is no demand against the assessee. But on the other side the same demand was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by order U/s 250 of the Act. We have carefully perused the documents on record. In our considered view, the Ld. AO has nullified the demand by issuing a rectification order under Section 143(1)/154 of the Act. Consequently, no demand remains outstanding against the assessee as per the rectification order of the ld. AO in impugned assessment year. Therefore, the demands upheld in the impugned appellate order cannot be 3 ITA No.2230/Mum/2024 M/s Portescap India Private Limited sustained against the assessee. The Ld. DR has acknowledged this position and accepted the submissions of the Ld. AR. In light of this, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed, and the impugned appellate order is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is allowed. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 2230/Mum/2024 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of November 2024. Sd/- sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 19/11/2024 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "