Pramod Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. ITO

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3496 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Gaylord Constructions 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0718 (Ker-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1758 (Raip-Trib) IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH RAVISH SOOD, J.M. Pramod Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. ITO ITA No. 82/RPR/2024 8 April, 2024 Assessee by: Sakshi Gopal Agrawal and Siddharth Parakh, CAs Revenue by: Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER *Ravish Sood, J.M.* The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12-1-2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 19-3-2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: '1. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned assessing officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing depreciation at higher rate of 30% on JCB and Tata Hitachi as the appellant was very much eligible for claiming higher depreciation and Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same. 2. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned assessing officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing interest of Rs. 14,01,072 on hire charges under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act on account of non-deduction of TDS as well as Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same. 3. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, learned assessing officer, NFAC and has been erred for making addition/adjustment to book profit under section 115JB which is beyond the scope of addition/adjustment given under section 115JB and Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same. 4. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the honorable Commissioner (Appeals) has erred for confirming the order of learned assessing officer without properly appreciating the fact of the case. 5. That, assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.' Also the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 'That your honour, the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30-3-2021 for the assessment year 2013-14 issued by ITO, Ward 1(1), Raipur is invalid. The jurisdiction of the appellant company lies with ITO, Bhatapara and not with ITO 1(1), Raipur, who had issued the notice under section 148 without assuming the jurisdiction over the appellant company as there is no evidence of transfer of case of the appellant from ITO, Bhatapara to the ITO 1(1), Raipur as required in terms of section 127 of Income Tax Act 1961. Accordingly, without a valid notice under section 148 the whole proceeding as well as the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B will become null and void.' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1758 (Raip-Trib)

IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH

RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

Pramod Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 82/RPR/2024

8 April, 2024

Assessee by: Sakshi Gopal Agrawal and Siddharth Parakh, CAs

Revenue by: Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

ORDER

Ravish Sood, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12-1-2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 19-3-2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

'1. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned assessing officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing depreciation at higher rate of 30% on JCB and Tata Hitachi as the appellant was very much eligible for claiming higher depreciation and Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same.

2. That on fact and circumstances of case of appellant. Learned assessing officer, NFAC has erred for disallowing interest of Rs. 14,01,072 on hire charges under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act on account of non-deduction of TDS as well as Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same.

3. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, learned assessing officer, NFAC and has been erred for making addition/adjustment to book profit under section 115JB which is beyond the scope of addition/adjustment given under section 115JB and Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has erred for confirming the same.

4. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the honorable Commissioner (Appeals) has erred for confirming the order of learned assessing officer without properly appreciating the fact of the case.

5. That, assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.'

Also the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under:

'That your honour, the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30-3-2021 for the assessment year 2013-14 issued by ITO, Ward 1(1), Raipur is invalid. The jurisdiction of the appellant company lies with ITO, Bhatapara and not with ITO 1(1), Raipur, who had issued the notice under section 148 without assuming the jurisdiction over the appellant company as there is no evidence of transfer of case of the appellant from ITO, Bhatapara to the ITO 1(1), Raipur as required in terms of section 127 of Income Tax Act 1961. Accordingly, without a valid notice under section 148 the whole proceeding as well as the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B will become null and void.'