9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 732 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - Revision u/s 263 - two rounds of appeal before the ITAT against the order of learned CIT passed under section 263 - fulfilment of condition under section 80IB - MA against the ITAT order arising that ITAT has not considered the issue raised. Proper opportunity to the assessee has not been given by the learned CIT while passing the order under section 263 - HELD THAT - In the first round of appeal before the ITAT, on assessee's plea that assessee has not been provided proper opportunity and there has been violation of principle of natural justice the ITAT had already remanded the matter to the learned CIT. Thereafter the learned CIT gave the assessee proper opportunity of being heard and passed afresh order. This order was duly upheld by the ITAT discussing all the facets of the merits. Now again the assessee is filing miscellaneous application contending that assessee has not been given proper opportunity by the learned CIT in as much as final order u/s. 263 is on a different ground than that was mentioned in the notice u/s. 263. Hence there is violation of principles of natural justice. We note that notice u/s. 263 is not something which the learned CIT issues in the second round of proceedings before him. Hence, in our considered opinion the assessee is seeking review of the order already passed after duly considering all the facts. This is not permissible under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the order of the tribunal in ITA No. 3732/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 regarding violation of natural justice and opportunity to make necessary arguments. Analysis: The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the tribunal's order for A.Y. 2007-08. The application contended that the final order of the CIT under section 263 of the IT Act was on different grounds than those mentioned in the notice issued under the same section, leading to a violation of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary arguments. The ITAT had two rounds of appeal against the CIT's order under section 263. In the first round, the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard, which was duly done in the second round, as noted in the CIT's subsequent order. The ITAT, after elaborate consideration of the issues, found merit in the CIT's observations regarding the merits of the assessee's case and upheld the CIT's order under section 263. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to pass a de novo assessment order after setting aside the previous assessment order, emphasizing the need for affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ITAT, dismissing the assessee's appeal, restored the CIT's order back to the AO for further inquiry regarding the fulfillment of conditions under section 80IB. The assessee then filed a miscellaneous application against the ITAT's order, alleging that the ITAT had ignored the discrepancy between the final order of the CIT and the original notice, which was already considered in the previous rounds of appeal. The ITAT concluded that the assessee was misusing the process by filing another application on the same grounds, as the issue had been duly addressed and considered in the previous proceedings. Therefore, the miscellaneous application was dismissed as impermissible under section 254(2) of the IT Act, emphasizing that the assessee had already been given proper opportunities and considerations in the earlier rounds of appeal. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the dismissal of the miscellaneous application, emphasizing that the assessee had availed proper opportunities and considerations in previous proceedings, and filing another application on the same grounds was not permissible under the IT Act.
|
