Page 21 - DTPA Journal Aug 18

DTPA - J | 2017-18 | Volume 3 | August 2018

Recent Decisions Under

The Income Tax Act, 1961

Subash Agarwal, Advocate

1) CIT vs. Kanpur Plasticpack Ltd. of appeals pending in different benches without
[2018] 95 taxmann.com 140 (SC) giving notice of hearing to the other side and such
order shall specify the reasons for consolidation.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO.
19775 OF 2018 FACTS : The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal consolidating 13
Order Dated : 03.07.2018
appeals pending before different Benches. The
RATIO : Sec. 148 – service of notice - SLP dismissed Petitioner is aggrieved by the cryptic and unreasoned
against High Court ruling that reassessment order and relies upon the application filed by one of the
proceedings initiated on the basis of notice served parties requesting for consolidating of the appeals. It is
under section 148 on accountant of company were submitted that these applications did not disclose any
vitiated, as accountant was not Principal Officer of reason as to why consolidation of all appeals, which
Company, nor was there any material to show that were pending for a long time and were adjourned at the
he had been authorised by company to accept any behest of the revenue by various benches, should be
notice. consolidated and listed before one Bench.
FACTS : Notice under section 148 was served on The learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to justify
accountant of company. He had duly been given the consolidation submitting that similar factual
Power of Attorney to conduct assessment disputes are involved in Assessee's appeal and it was
proceedings for that year. Tribunal held that felt that in the interest of justice, it would be essential to
reassessment proceedings were invalid and consolidate all the appeals to enable the Bench to
quashed assessment order on ground that notice discern the common picture. The record nowhere
under section 148 was not validly served. High discloses nor does the Revenue dispute that the ITAT
Court held that accountant was not Principal did give any notice to the Petitioner/assessee before
Officer of Company, nor was there any material to issuing the consolidation order.
show that he had been authorised by company to FINDINGS : All these appeals preferred by the
accept any notice and such being case.
appellant were listed and heard repeatedly by different
FINDINGS : Reassessment proceedings initiated Benches. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has to
on the basis of notice served under section 148 on follow the proper procedure.
accountant of company were vitiated, as
In these circumstances, all the previous orders are
accountant was not Principal Officer of Company, hereby quashed. In case the Revenue wishes to
nor was there any material to show that he had been
consolidate all these appeals, it shall move a proper
authorised by company to accept any notice.
comprehensive application before the ITAT, serving a
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground copy in advance to the assessee. The ITAT should issue
of delay as well as on merits. notice to the Assessee before agreeing on the
Imp Note : SLP arose out of the order of Allahabad application and after considering the submission of both
High Court in CIT v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. 390 the parties, pass a reasoned order.
ITR 381 (All.) With aforesaid observations, the present petition filed
2) BPTP Ltd. vs. PCIT by the petitioner is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
[2018] 95 taxmann.com 234 (Delhi) Cases relied upon :
W.P. (C) NO. 7098 OF 2018 (i) Olympia Paper & Stationery Stores v. Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, (63 ITD 148)
Order Dated : 16.07.2018
(ii) Dr. Prannoy Roy v. The Deputy Commissioner of
RATIO : ITAT cannot pass an order for consolidation

www.dtpa.org Direct Taxes Professionals' Association - Journal | 18