TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petition stand allowed in terms of our above order." 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not issued with any notice before the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 was passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the order has to go and at best, the case has to be remitted back to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order. 3. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be re-called, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is further submitted that at best, the respondents can appeal against the order dated 23.12.2020 allowing the petitioner's appeal. 4. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid order was without any merits, as the order passed by the Tribunal in the first round was well reasoned and there was no error apparent on the face of record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that the procedure under Rule 19 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 regarding listing of the Miscellaneous Petition in the cause list had gone un-not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Miscellaneous Petition. 9. Copies of the notices dated 06.04.2022 and 04.05.2022 although bears a signature of the officials of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stating that the notice has been issued, there are no records to substantiate that the notice was indeed dispatched and received by the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Telecom Limited reported in (2022) 284 TAXMAN 517 (SC) and (ii) Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in (2008) 14 SCC 171. 11. That apart, it is submitted that after the petitioner came to know that again the appeal was listed for hearing, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 14.03.2023 to the first respondent informing that the petitioner does not remember as regards receipt of a copy of the order and any notice of hearing was sent to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. 12. Defending the impugned order, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner was issued with notice, as has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act, 1961. An Assessment order came to be passed on 19.12.2014 by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner reads as under: "5.1. As stated in para 2.4 above, the AO has allowed local agency commission of Rs. 1,15,52,348/-on domestic sale of Rs. 4,09,17,684/- which is 28.32 per cent of the domestic sale. The rate of foreign agency commission was only 1.47 per cent i.e., commission of Rs. 64,33,064/- on export sale of Rs. 43,84,87,431/-. The assessee has wrongly given the overall rate of commission to justify the high commission paid locally. No proper reason has been given to justify such excessive commission which is way beyond any fair and reasonable rate. The expense has not been established to have been laid out or extended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict local agency commission to 1.47 per cent of the domestic sale and add back the excess amount to the total income. As regards the other issues, the AO is directed to consider the explanation given by the assessee and obtain/verify the details furnished by it in respect of various is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12.2014 is barred by limitation u/s. 153(5) of the Act and hence pleaded to quash the order. Per contra, the Id. DR supported the order of the Id.AO. 4. We heard the rival submissions and gone through relevant orders/material. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Act, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order u/s. 263 of the Act, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s. 263 of the Act is passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the order giving effect to that order passed by the AO dated 26.02.2016 is clearly beyond the time limit allowed u/s. 153(3) of the Act and hence the Id. AR's plea is sustained. The order of the AC dated 26.02.2016 is quashed." 23. It is, under these circumstances, the respondent had filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 47/CHNY/2021 to re-call the order passed on 23.12.2020. The said order records that despite notices being served on the petitioner, the petitioner has not entered appearance. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that notice was served, however, none appeared on behalf of th....