Compucom Software Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5443 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:27439-DB]                   (1 of 5)                            [ITA-3/2023]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 3/2023

Compucom Software Limited, Having Its Address At It-14-15,
Epip Sitapura, Jaipur.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, Jaipur, Having
Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dad
Road, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Siddharth Ranka with
                                   Ms. Apeksha Bapna

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 03/10/2023 ORAL

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

dated 31.08.2022, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "ITAT"), in Income Tax

Appeal No. 153/JP/2022, whereby the appeal of the appellant-

assessee was allowed to the extent of remanding the matter back

to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short "PCIT") for

afresh consideration, the present appeal has been filed by the

appellant-assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (for short "IT Act").

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submits

that the appellant-assessee filed its return of income on

28.11.2017 for the FY 2017-2018 declaring the total income at Rs.

[2023:RJ-JP:27439-DB] (2 of 5) [ITA-3/2023]

10.91 crores (approx). The said return was selected for scrutiny

and thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (for

short "ACIT") passed an assessment order dated 17.12.2019

under Section 143(3) of the IT Act wherein the total income was

assessed at Rs. 11.17 crores (approx) after making additions of

Rs. 25.89 lakhs (approx) under various heads. The PCIT, in

exercise of his revisionary power, found the assessment order to

be prejudicial and against the interest of the revenue and

accordingly issued notice to the appellant-assessee under Section

263 of the IT Act on 12.03.2022 and date of hearing was fixed on

21.03.2022. It is contended that since the notice and date of

hearing were fixed at the fag end of the financial year, the

appellant-assessee filed an adjournment application on

21.03.2022 on the Income Tax Portal and the said application was

successfully submitted. However, despite that, the PCIT passed

the order dated 27.03.2023 with the specific observation that

since no reply was filed by the appellant-assessee, the order is

being passed on the basis of material available on record. The said

order dated 27.03.2023 was assailed before the ITAT and the ITAT,

vide order dated 31.08.2022 allowed the appeal, by noting that

there were violations of principles of natural justice, but only to

the extent of remitting the matter back to the PCIT.

4. The primary grievance of the appellant-assessee is that

the ITAT, in the case of Ashutosh Bhargava vs. PCIT-2 Jaipur

(ITA No. 20/JP/2021; decided on 06.01.2022), in similar

facts and circumstances, had set aside the entire revisional

proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the IT Act, whereas in

[2023:RJ-JP:27439-DB] (3 of 5) [ITA-3/2023]

the case of the appellant-assessee, the matter was remanded

back to the PCIT. Reliance was also placed on Apex Court

judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Ors.

reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 and judgment of Allahabad High

Court in the case of M/s M.L. Chains vs The Pr. Commissioner

of Income Tax-1 & Ors. (Writ Tax No. 638/2022; Decided

on 16.08.2023; Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:163882)

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-

assessee and upon consideration of the material on record, this

Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised by the

appellant, asserting that the entire proceedings initiated under

Section 263 of the IT Act should be set aside, is not tenable for

the following reasons:

5.1) Because it is undisputed that proceedings under Section

263 of the IT Act were initiated well within the statutory time

limit, albeit towards the fag end;

5.2) Because the appellant-assessee was afforded a

reasonable opportunity of hearing and to present their contentions,

even though the notice period for hearing was somewhat short on

account of impending expiration of the assessment period.

5.3) Because the adjournment application was also filed by the

appellant-assessee on the day of the hearing, despite reasonable

opportunity being given.

5.4) Because the reliance placed upon the order of Ashutosh

Bhargava (supra), issued by the ITAT, is predicated on distinguishable

factual circumstances. In the case of Ashutosh Bhargava (supra),

the assessee was an individual, and it was observed that sufficient time

and opportunity had not been provided to him. It is noteworthy that the

[2023:RJ-JP:27439-DB] (4 of 5) [ITA-3/2023]

factual matrix in the present case is disparate from that of Ashutosh

Bhargava(supra). Even otherwise, it is imperative to recognize that

the said order emanated from the ITAT and does not possess binding

authority over this Court.

5.5) Because the ITAT, in its considered judgment, took note of

the fact that the assessee was not accorded sufficient opportunity

during the prior proceedings, thereby deviating from the principles of

natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT exercised its discretion to

remand the case for afresh consideration. It is essential to underscore

that such a decision cannot be characterized as perverse. Given the

circumstances at hand, the remand order stands as a valid and

appropriate course of action.

6. An appeal from the order of the learned ITAT can only be

admitted on a substantial question of law. The law on admitting an

appeal from an order of a tribunal, on substantial question of law, has

been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of

India Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-

Dumping and Allied Duties and Ors. (Neutral Citation:

2017/INSC/356) reported in (2017) 13 SCC 1, wherein the Apex

Court has held that if the tribunal, on consideration of the material and

relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible

conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if the higher Courts

are inclined to take another view of the matter.

7. In light of the prevailing facts and circumstances, when

substantial relief has already been granted, there exists no

justifiable reason to intervene or formulate substantial questions

of law.

[2023:RJ-JP:27439-DB] (5 of 5) [ITA-3/2023]

8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

Pooja /19

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)