Case Number: ITA 5598/DEL/2019
Appellant: Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward 17(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-06-27
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-09-09
Pronounced On: 2021-09-09
This case involves the appeal filed by Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi relating to the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was filed on 2019-06-27 and the order was pronounced on 2021-09-09. The main issue in this case was related to the assumption of jurisdiction being time-barred under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year under consideration.
Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd is a company based in New Delhi. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which the appellant claimed was time-barred. The assessment was completed, and the appellant challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO as being time-barred. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the notice was served within the required time and that the assessee had participated in the scrutiny proceedings without raising any objections.
Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd raised the following grounds of appeal:
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel moved an adjournment application, but upon reviewing the material on record, it was decided that the hearing could proceed. The counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pranshu Singhal, CA, and the Senior Departmental Representative (DR) were heard.
The Tribunal reviewed the findings of the CIT(A) and found that the order was vague and non-speaking. It lacked the necessary details and facts required to support the conclusion that the notice under Section 143(2) was served within the statutory time limits. The Tribunal emphasized that an order subject to appeal must set out relevant facts and reasons to be considered valid and not arbitrary.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A) had failed to provide a detailed and reasoned order as required by law. The absence of a discussion on relevant facts and reasons rendered the conclusion arbitrary and whimsical. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The CIT(A) was directed to specifically set out the necessary details, including the date and address at which the notice was issued, to demonstrate that it was within the statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that the entire order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was instructed to re-adjudicate the jurisdiction issue and, if necessary, decide the issue afresh on merits.
In conclusion, the appeal of Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 2021-09-09. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication with proper opportunity for the appellant to present the case on merits.
This case underscores the importance of detailed and reasoned orders in tax proceedings, ensuring that all relevant facts and reasons are documented to support the conclusions drawn by the authorities.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2021-09-09
Signed by:
(DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 2021-09-09
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Mohan Traders vs ITO, Ward 17(1), New Delhi – Assumption of Jurisdiction Time Barred
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform