UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

MA 183/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves UCWEB Mobile Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Department regarding the assessment year 2020-21. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the Tribunal had erred in not concluding the arguments on Ground No.1 related to jurisdiction in their earlier appeal (ITA No.3945/Del/2024). The Tribunal had previously rejected this ground, leading to the current application. The appellant argued that the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was invalid, thus the extended period of limitation for assessment should not apply. The respondent contested the application, stating that the ground was not withdrawn and had been adequately addressed. The Tribunal dismissed the M.A., affirming that all grounds of appeal had been considered and adjudicated upon.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714503 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), S.Nagaraj and Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors. [1993] Supp. (4) SCC 595
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESHWAR RAO
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Period of limitation
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"MA No.183/Del/2025 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I-FRIDAY” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.183/Del/2025 [In ITA No.3945/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] UCWEB Mobile Pvt.Ltd., Tara Complex, Shop No.9, 2nd Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Near Police Station, Industrial Complex, Dundahera S.O Gurgaon, Harayan-122016. PAN-AABCU5282A vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi National Faceless Assessment Center, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The assessee has filed Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.3945/Del/2024 order dated 30.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 under section 254(1) of the Act. 2. In this application, it is stated that the order of Tribunal contained a mistake apparent on record to the extent that the AR of the assessee has not concluded his arguments in respect to Ground Printed from counselvise.com MA No.183/Del/2025 Page | 2 No.1 and proceeded to make submission on merits. Thus, the Jurisdictional ground taken in Ground of appeal No.1 was not concluded and was kept open for adjudication for any other appeal. It is thus, prayed that the order of the Tribunal in rejecting Ground No.1 of appeal of the assessee constitute a mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) of the Act and it is requested to modify the conclusion taken in Ground No.1 by us. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC). Further reliance placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Nagaraj and Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors. [1993] Supp. (4) SCC 595 wherein it is held was that “technicalities cannot come in the way of doing justice by correcting errors and it is legal and constitutional obligation of the Court to set it right buy recalling its order.” He thus, prayed accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue objected to the M.A. filed by the assessee and submits that during the course of hearing. Ld.AR advanced certain arguments in respect of Ground of appeal No.1 taken and counter arguments were also made by Ld. CIT DR. If the assessee was not willing to pursue Ground of appeal No.1, the same should be withdrawn or not pressed which has not been done therefore, there is no error in the order of Tribunal and M.A. filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of record, we find Printed from counselvise.com MA No.183/Del/2025 Page | 3 that during the course of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee made submission on Ground of appeal No.1 taken with regard to jurisdiction and thereafter, proceeded to argue on the merits of the case. From the records, it is seen that the assessee has not withdrawn Ground No.1. Moreover, in the written synopsis filed before us, a brief submission is made in respect of Ground of appeal No.1 taken by the assessee which reads as under:- GROUND NO. 1: ASSESSMENT TIME BARRED IN ABSENCE OF VALID REFERENCE ΤΟ ΤΡΟ 7. “Impugned order is barred by limitation as reference made to TPO is invalid. Extended period of limitation under section 153(4) of the Act of 12 months would not be available in absence of valid reference to TPO. 8. Jurisdiction invoked to conduct faceless assessment under section 144 B by issuance of section 143(2) notice can only be transferred to jurisdictional AO by following prescription under section 144B(8). Further section 1448 details functions of Assessment Unit, Technical unit, Verification Unit and Review Unit (section 1448(3)]. Section 130 facilitates concurrent jurisdiction for faceless assessment officers. Careful consideration of section 1448 would show that there is no provision for Technical Unit to make reference to TPO, as Technical Unit itself is authorised to perform functions of providing technical assistance for transfer pricing. Further delegation by one TPO (Technical Unit under faceless regime) to TPO (erstwhile physical assessment regime) is not permissible on a plain reading of provisions of Act. 9. Appellant bona fide believes that it would succeed on this jurisdictional challenge itself. However, since repeated adjournments were being taken by Respondent-Department on pretext of obtaining inputs from field offices in relation to technical ground (kindly refer to order sheets dated 16.01.2025 and 05.03.2025). solely in the interest of expediting consideration of its Appeal, Appellant is also making submissions on all the grounds of appeal relating to merits. Appellant prays for consideration of all grounds including jurisdictional ground as briefly mentioned above and in the event Hon'ble Tribunal grants relief on grounds relating to merit, Appellant prays that it may kindly be permitted to reserve its right to contest above technical ground before appropriate forums, should the need arise at later stages of litigation/future date.” Printed from counselvise.com MA No.183/Del/2025 Page | 4 4. Since this Ground of appeal is not withdrawn by the assessee and submissions were also put forth therefore, adjudication of ground of appeal is not an error. Further, it is also is to be kept in mind that while passing the order, every ground of appeal should be considered and disposed off which has been done in the instant case and if any ground is left unanswered, there might be a situation where the assessee/ Revenue file MA for adjudication of the same. Thus, we find no error in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.3945/Del/2024 for AY 202-021 accordingly, M.A filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "