VINTECH FLUXO PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 317/RPR/2024

AI Insights

Vintech Fluxo Private Limited appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which arose from an assessment order under Sec.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention was the procedural impropriety in the handling of notices and the delay in the appellate order, which was issued 3.5 years after the last hearing, contrary to CBDT guidelines. Additionally, issues regarding the validity of the jurisdiction under which the assessment was made and the merits of the additions made under section 68 of the Act were also raised but not addressed in detail due to the restoration of the matter for re-adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469805 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5, Pr. CIT Vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. 422 ITR 37 (Bom.), Micro Marbles Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, CWP No.13719/2021, dated 04.01.2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Borrowed satisfaction; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c); 68; 133(6); 234B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Block No.10, CSIDC, Phase-1, Siltara Industrial Area, Siltara, Raipur (C.G.)-493 111 PAN : AACCV5675K .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 2 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.01.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because in spite of having mentioned in Form No. 35 of A.Y. 2011/12 filed on 08.01.2019 that notice/ communication to be sent manually, hearing notices and CIT(A) order dt. 27.01.2024 were sent only electronically, which ultimately results in not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee company and not providing CIT(A) order to the assessee company in a manner requested by it. 2) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 on 27.01.2024 after issuing last hearing notice on 24.12.2020 which is against the CBDT Instruction dated 19th June 2015 directing that all Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should issue appellate orders within 15 days of the last hearing. 3) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because AO had not assumed valid jurisdiction to initiate proceeding u/s 147 as AO had initiated proceeding u/s 147 on borrowed satisfaction and without application of independent mind on incomplete information provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department. 3 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 4) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because in spite of specific request made by the assessee company to provide the supporting documents and statements of the concerned persons in respect of allegation made on it and opportunity to cross examine the person who had given adverse statements, if any, no such documents and opportunity were provided by the AO in compliance of law and principle of natural justice. 5) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because in spite of all evidences provided by the \"Trimurti Infra Developers P. Ltd.\" in response to notice issued u/s.133(6) to prove genuineness of transaction made with the assessee company as per requirements of section 68 AO had made addition for alleged failure to prove source of the source by ignoring that as per law prevailing at that time assessee can only be asked to prove source of credit but not the source of the source. 6) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, order passed by CIT(A) is not as per law because AO had made addition u/s. 68 by ignoring decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of \"CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5\" given in the context to the pre-amended section 68 of the Act wherein it is held that \"where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit\". 7) Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 6, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.52,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 for alleged unexplained cash credit by ignoring submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee company and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. The assessee company prays that the addition of Rs.52,00,000/- be deleted. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 4 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 2. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for assessee at the threshold of hearing submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 106 days. Elaborating on the reason leading to delay of 106 days in filing of the present appeal, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the \"affidavit\", dated 08.07.2024 filed by Shri Jitendra Kumar Agrawal, director of the assessee company. The Ld. AR stated that though the assessee company had specifically stated in “Form No. 35” that all notices/communications be sent in a mode otherwise through email but, till date, no physical/hard copy of the impugned order of the CIT (A) had been received. The learned AR to fortify his contention has taken us through “Form No. 35”, which revealed that the assessee company had opted for receiving all notices/communications otherwise than through email. 3. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (for short, 'Sr.DR') objected to the request for condonation of delay. It was submitted by her that as the delay involved in filing the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same does not merit to be condoned. 4. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties qua the issue of delay involved in filing the present appeal. Ostensibly, a perusal of “Form No. 35” reveals that the assessee company 5 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 had opted out of service of notices/communications through email. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of “Form No. 35” is culled out as under: 5. Although, the assessee company had specifically stated that all the notices/communications be sent otherwise then through email but no physical/hard copy of the order of the CIT(A) had been served upon the assessee company. The Ld. AR stated that it was only when the assessee company had gone through the e-proceedings tax portal on receipt of text message about hearing of penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2011-12 on 26.05.2024 that it had gathered about the disposal of its quantum appeal for AY 2011-12 on 27.01.2024 by the CIT(A). 6. Admittedly, as the Department has failed to serve upon the assessee company a hard copy of the impugned order, therefore, we find no justification in reckoning the period of limitation from the date on which 6 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 the impugned order is stated to have been dropped in its email account. As the assessee company states that the impugned order of the CIT(A) had come to its notice on 26.05.2024 (supra), therefore, in all fairness, the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the said date. As the present appeal has been filed by the assessee company on 11.07.2024 i.e. within the stipulated time period of 60 days from the aforesaid date, i.e. 26.05.2024, therefore, the same can safely be held to have been filed within the prescribed time. 7. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations condone the impugned delay of 106 days (as pointed out by the registry) in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. 8. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 29.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs.1,42,240/-. The A.O based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.52 lacs received from a Kolkata based company, viz. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 was issued to the assessee company. 9. As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O in order to verify the authenticity of the assessee’s claim of having received an amount 7 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 of Rs.52 lacs as share application money from M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, dated 30.11.2018, wherein the latter was called upon to furnish certain information. As observed by the A.O, the aforementioned share applicant company, viz. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The A.O after deliberating upon the “balance sheet” of the share applicant company, viz. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., observed that the latter did not possess the creditworthiness to make an investment of Rs.52 lacs as share application money with the assessee company. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2018 after holding the amount of Rs.52 lacs as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.53,42,240/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. Although the assessee company had assailed the assessment order qua the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O as well as merits of the case, but the same did not find favour with the first appellate authority who dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: 8 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 “8. Adjudication: I have carefully considered the averments of the AO in the assessment order on the basis of the queries raised and response filed. I have also gone through the written submission in support of the grounds raised backed by legal precedents. 8.1 The grounds 1 to 3 relating to reopening of assessment: The Assessing officer has followed the due process of law as prescribed by the Act and tax jurisprudence. The reason for the re-opening was also provided by the Assessing Officer as per the request of the appellant. A full scale enquiry before issue of notice was not contemplated by the Act. Hence these grounds are dismissed as I find that there is no infirmity in the procedure found adopted by the AO on receipt of information. These grounds of appeal are dismissed. 8.2 Ground No 4 relates to the quantum addition sought to be assailed on merits. First, the facts attendant to the issue in the appellant's case needs to be taken note of before adverting to the ratio given by various legal forums. For in no case, the facts are identical. The AO's reasoning is self-explanatory for making the impugned addition. On the contrary, no fresh additional evidence has been brought on record by the appellant to place things beyond doubt. What is apparent need not necessarily be real. The maze of transactions that have been entered into by various entities and taking into account the fact that the transactions per se on the face of it does not prove the queries raised and the satisfaction recorded for not accepting the explanation as satisfactory.'' For these reasons, the attempt on the part of the appellant to give a color of acceptance to the transactions cannot pass muster taking into account the circumstances under which the transaction has been entered into. For these reasons, there is no reason to decide the case on legal precedents but only on facts and therefore the AO's reason for not treating the explanation as satisfactory does not call interference. 8.3 Ground 6 relate to charge of interest u/s. 234B of income tax act. Charge of interest u/s.234 B is consequential in nature and it has been charged as per act. This ground is dismissed. 9 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 8.4 The ground No 5 and 7 are general in nature and they do not therefore deserve adjudication. Both the grounds are dismissed.” 11. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 12. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 13. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. AR for the assessee company at the threshold submitted, that the A.O had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Ac, dated 30.12.2018. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee company vide its letter dated 26.04.2018, Page 4 of APB, had after filing its return of income in compliance to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2011- 12, had requested for a copy of “reasons to believe” but complete copy of the same was not made available to it. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the copy of the “reasons to believe”, based on which, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee company, Page 8 & 9 of APB. Carrying his contention 10 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 further, the Ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the “reasons to believe” revealed that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee company based on the statement of Shri Sanjay Drolia, an alleged entry operator that was stated to have been recorded in the course of certain search/survey/investigation proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O in the “reasons to believe” had observed that there was credible information in his possession that the assessee as a beneficiary had obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.52 lacs from a paper/shell company, i.e. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that not only the A.O had initiated impugned proceedings based upon his general observations but had also failed to make available a copy of the statement of Shri Sanjay Drolia (supra), based on which, the impugned proceedings had been initiated in its case. The Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the failure of the A.O to make available a copy of the statement of Shri Sanjay Drolia which formed part of the “reasons to believe” had resulted to invalid assumption of jurisdiction by him for proceeding with and framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2018. The Ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the “reasons to believe” revealed that the impugned proceedings had been initiated by the A.O in absence of any material which could lead to the formation of Bonafide belief that the income of the assessee company chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, but in fact, 11 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 the same was guided by mere wild assumptions and surmises. The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contention submitted that as there was neither any basis for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee nor there was a valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O to proceed with and frame the assessment without making available a complete copy of the “reasons to believe” a/w. copy of the statement of Shri Sanjay Drolia, therefore, the assessment framed by him on the said count itself is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contentions had relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pr. CIT Vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. 422 ITR 37 (Bom.) (ii) Micro Marbles Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, CWP No.13719/2021, dated 04.01.2023. 14. Apropos the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his perverse observation had held the share application money of Rs.52 lacs received by the assessee company from M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O had while framing the assessment observed that the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, dated 30.11.2018 issued to M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, i.e. share applicant company was not complied with by the latter as no reply to the said notice was received by him. The Ld. AR had taken us through Page 3 12 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 to 6 of the assessment order. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid observation of the A.O was totally perverse. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O contradicting his aforesaid observation, had himself observed at Page 7 of the assessment order that the director of the share applicant company, viz. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., had in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act stated that it was engaged in business of trading of paddy. Based on his aforesaid contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the primary fact that had weighed in the mind of the A.O for drawing adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the share application money received by the assessee company from M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd was that the latter had failed to comply with the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, dated 30.11.2018, which was a factually incorrect observation. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee’s claim of having received genuine share application money from the aforementioned share applicant company had not been dislodged/disproved by the A.O based on any material, therefore, the adverse inferences so drawn by him were liable to be vacated. 15. The Ld. AR in support of his contention that M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the share applicant company, had substantial creditworthiness to make investment of Rs.52 lacs with the assessee company, had taken us through its financial statements for the year under consideration. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the profit & loss 13 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 account of the share applicant company for the year under consideration, Page 66 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the share applicant company, viz. M/s. Trimurti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. had during the year under consideration sale receipts of Rs.5.06 crore (approx.) and work contract receipts of Rs.1.95 crore (approx.). Also, our attention was drawn to the sales of Rs.5.63 crore (approx.) and work contract receipt of Rs.10.54 lacs of the share applicant company for the immediately preceding year, i.e. A.Y.2010-11. The Ld. AR had also taken us through the “balance sheet” of the share applicant company, Page 65 of APB. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the share applicant company had sufficient share holding funds a/w. reserves and surplus aggregating to Rs.15.38 crore as on 31.03.2011, which proved to the hilt its creditworthiness to make an investment of Rs.52 lacs with the assessee company during the year under consideration. 16. The Ld. AR had further assailed the validity of the order of the CIT(Appeals). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company was in receipt of notice dated 24.12.2020 for filing online submission on or before 08.01.2021. In compliance, the assessee company had filed its reply on 21.07.2021, a fact which is discernible from the order of the CIT(Appeals), Page 2 of CIT(Appeals)’s order. The Ld. AR submitted that after the assessee company had filed its reply on 21.07.2021 no further hearing of the appeal was fixed by the CIT(Appeals), 14 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 who thereafter, had proceeded with and disposed off the appeal vide order dated 27.01.2024. The Ld. AR submitted that disposal of the assessee’s appeal after a lapse of a period of 3½ years from the date of last hearing of the appeal was not only an arbitrary exercise carried out by the appellate authority, but also was in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.20/2003, dated 23.12.2003, the strict compliance of which was once again reiterated by the Board vide its letter dated, 19th June, 2015 issued to Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income Tax bearing F. No.279/Mise 53/2003-ITJ, Page 164 of APB. It was submitted by him that the CBDT vide its Instruction No.20/2003, dated 23.12.2003, had directed the CIT(Appeals) to pass their orders within a period of 15 days of the last date of hearing. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the aforesaid CBDT Instruction (supra) was operative during the regime of physical hearing of the appeals, but the same would in substance equally be applicable for fair disposal of the appeals as on date by the first appellate authority. The Ld. AR submitted that as the appeal of the assessee company had been disposed off by the CIT(Appeals) after a lapse of 3½ years (approx.) from the date of last hearing, therefore, the order on the said count itself being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. 17. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 15 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 18. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties on the multi-facet issues, viz. (i) the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of assessment vide his order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2018; (ii) the maintainability of the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) after a lapse of a period of 3½ years (approx.) from the date of last hearing of the appeal; and (iii) the sustainability of the addition made by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act. 19. As the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 27.01.2024 on the ground that the same had been passed after a lapse of a period 3 ½ years from the last date of hearing of the appeal on 21.07.2021, therefore, we are of the view that the said aspect needs to be addressed first. 20. Ostensibly, the CIT(Appeals) at Para 3 of his order had observed that the notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued to the assessee company intimating fixation of the date for filing online submissions on or before 08.01.2021. The CIT(Appeals), further observed that the assessee company, had thereafter, filed its reply on 21.07.2021, which was considered by him. However, we find that there is no whisper in the body of the order of the CIT(Appeals) that the appeal of the assessee company 16 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 was thereafter re-fixed. Rather, the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, had thereafter, disposed off the appeal vide his order dated 27.10.2024. 21. We find on a perusal of the aforesaid details which have not been rebutted/dislodged by the Ld. DR, that after closing of the date of online submission i.e. on or before 08.01.2021, the CIT(Appeals) had though taken cognizance of the reply/written submission filed by the assessee company on 21.07.2021 but thereafter, had not refixed the hearing of the appeal and had disposed off the same after a lapse of a period of 3½ years, i.e. on 27.01.2024. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought by the assessee to adjudicate the maintainability of the order of the CIT(Appeals) which had been disposed off after lapse of a period of 3½ years from the date of last hearing. In substance, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that as per the Instruction No.20/2003 (supra), the CBDT had desired that the appellate orders by the CIT(Appeals) should be passed within 15 days from the date of last hearing. 22. Although, the aforementioned CBDT Instruction pertain to the era of physical regime of hearing of the appeals by the CIT(Appeals), but the same in pith and substance, in our view, would clearly be applicable to the disposal of the appeals in faceless manner in the present regime. Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to cull out the Instruction No.20/2003 (supra), which reads as under: 17 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 The CBDT considering the importance of its Instruction No.20/2003, dated 23.12.2003 and ensuring strict adherence to the same, had thereafter, issued a letter dated 19th June, 2015 to Pr. Commissioners of Income Tax, 18 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 wherein, they were requested to ensure strict compliance of the time frame provided in the aforesaid instruction for disposal of the appeals by the CIT(Appeals). For the sake of clarity, the letter dated 19.06.2015 issued by the CBDT is culled out as under: 19 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 Considering the fact that the Instructions issued by the CBDT are binding on the revenue as had been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd., Tax Case (Income-tax Appeal) No.21 of 2008, dated 21.10.2010, we are of a firm conviction, that the disposal of the appeal in a efficacious manner, within the time frame as provided in the aforesaid Instruction, which though was issued during the physical regime of disposal of appeals by the CIT(Appeals) requires to be strictly adhered to. 23. We find that as per the details filed by the Ld. AR, the notice intimating fixation of hearing of the appeal was issued by the CIT(Appeals) on the first occasion i.e. on 24.06.2020, wherein the assessee company was directed to respond by 25.06.2020. Thereafter, the CIT(Appeals), NFAC had issued notice dated 24.12.2020 intimating the hearing of the appeal, wherein the assessee company was called upon to comply on or before 08.07.2021. We find that on 01.11.2022, the CIT(Appeals), NFAC had provided enablement of communication window. Nothing has been placed on record which would reveal that any notice intimating fixation of the appeal was issued after 24.12.2020. 24. As the appeal of the present assessee company before us had been disposed off on 27.01.2024 i.e. after a lapse of an inordinate period of 3½ years from the date on which the appeal was last fixed for furnishing 20 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 online submission on or before 08.01.2021, therefore, the order so passed cannot be sustained on the said count itself. Accordingly, in all fairness the matter requires to be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals), with a direction to re-adjudicate the same afresh within a reasonable time period. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 25. As we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication in terms of our aforesaid observations, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein dealing with the other contentions qua both the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O and framing of the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2018, as well as sustainability of the addition made by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 22nd day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 22nd October, 2024. ***SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 21 Vintech Fluxo Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 317/RPR/2024 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "