Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1460 - ITAT BANGALOREDRP power to condone the delay in filing objections by the assessee before the Panel - AR admitted that there was a delay in filing the objections before the DRP by 3 days (the assessee has to file objections before the DRP u/s 144C(2)(b) within 30 days from the date of receipt of draft assessment order) - HELD THAT:- DRP derives its authorities and powers from the provisions of section 144C and its procedures are governed by Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009. The provisions of the Act or Rule do not give power to the DRP to condone any delay in filing the objections by the assessee before the Panel. If the Legislature had intended to give such powers, it had been expressly implied as in the case of powers with the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the I.T.Act and ITAT u/s 253(5) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the DRP does not have powers to condone the delay of filing objections by the assessee before the Panel. See INNO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [2018 (9) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - we hold that the DRP has no power to condone the delay in filing objections by the assessee before the Panel. ITAT power to hold that the assessment order is barred by limitation - In this case, the final assessment order dated 30.09.2016 was not pursuant to the direction of DRP. Therefore, the correct course open for the assessee would have been to file an appeal before the CIT(A) and pursue the said issue. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Inno Estates (P.) Ltd [2018 (9) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had also decided the above issue indirectly. In the case considered by the Hon’ble High Court, the Advocate for the assessee submitted that the appeal would lie to the ITAT u/s 253(1)(d) of the I.T.Act and not before the CIT(A) u/s 246(1)(a) of the I.T.Act. This contention of the Advocate was rejected by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Hon’ble Madras High Court directed the assessee to file an appeal to the CIT(A) instead of ITAT The plea of the assessee that the assessment order is barred by limitation, is not entertained on account of the reason that ITAT does not have jurisdiction for the same. Tribunal in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. [2021 (4) TMI 151 - ITAT BANGALORE] relied by the assessee will not have application, since the ITAT has not considered the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court, cited supra. As regards the DR’s reliance on the ITAT order in the case of Himalaya Drug Co. v. DCIT (supra), we are not taking note of the same, since we have no jurisdiction to consider the plea of limitation on facts of this case. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
|