TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") was justified in holding that the Assessment Order dated 28.09.2021 was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Act, despite the fact that the said Assessment Order was digitally signed 01.10.2021? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 70,96,07,349/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules")? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in invoking Rule 8D of the Rules in the absence of any objective satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, in terms of Section 14A(2) of the Act, having regard to the accounts of the Appellant? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) was bound to accept the Appellant's working of disallowance ignoring consistent past practice and earlier orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal for prior assessment years? 5. Whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstance of case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not following binding precedent of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd v. DCIT [ITA Nos. 3317/Mum/2009 and 1692/Mum/2010]? 15. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the findings of the Ld. AO recording purported satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Appellant? 4. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 28/09/2021 claiming that it was not passed within the limitation period prescribed u/s. 153 of the Act. 5. Since this challenge goes to the root of the matter, we will address it first. 6. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. Judicial decisions referred to duly considered. 7. The quarrel revolves around the date of assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Referring to the impugned assessment order, the Counsel strongly contended that the same is digitally signed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for relevant A.Y. This screen shot was taken on 30/09/2021 at 17.24, and proof of same is enclosed herewith as annexure-2. From this, it is clearly evident that the FAO being AO of faceless Assessment Scheme has indeed concluded and finalised this Assessment order and uploaded on to ITBA on 28/09/2021 itself along with its generation as mentioned in this order of FAO as per the evidences adduced as Annexure-1 & 2. However, the technical team of NFAC has to affix the relevant Digital Signature of it for its necessary forwarding through ITBA to the concerned assessee in their E-mail electronically. Accordingly, the order sheet digital footprints of FAO as recorded electronically in chronological sequence as enclosed herewith as Annexure-"1", clearly establishes & evidences that the Assessment order is indeed concluded, uploaded and generated by FAO on 28/09/2021 itself as per the date of order as mentioned in the order of FAO. Affixing Digital Signature of NFAC has indeed took some time for NFAC owing to some technical errors/glitches encountered by NFAC for its final communication to assessee as per the new scheme of Faceless Assessments under I.T. Act. In view of the same, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is still pending in my worklist as "approved for order generation". It is clearly seen from the above screen shot of ITBA that assessment order was generated by FAO well within the time on its completion on 28.09.2021 itself. The proof of this ITBA complaint incident is enclosed herewith as annexure-5 for kind perusal and appreciation of the Hon'ble Bench to establish that the FAO has indeed completed the assessment order on 28.09.2021 as mentioned in his assessment order. 8. From the above facts of the case and keeping in view of the due procedures of the faceless assessments scheme under NFAC, it is submitted that the FAO has to pass and generate the assessment order on its uploading to ITBA and thereafter NFAC has to account for the same for its necessary communication to the assessee with applicable digital signature of NFAC as part of service of order to the assessee. From these clear facts as analysed supra with digital evidences/foot prints as per annexure 1 to 5, it is amply clear that the A.O has concluded the assessment and generated the assessment order on 28th September, 2021 itself on ITBA. Thereafter, the FAO has indeed followed up with NIAC fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment has expired in which the tax payable is determined and not that the form usually styled the "assessment order" should itself contain the computation of tax as well. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under:- "The statute does not, however, require that both the computations (i.e. of the total income as well as of the sum payable) should be done on the same sheet of paper, the sheet that is super scribed "assessment order". It does not prescribe any form of the purpose. It will be appreciated that once the assessment of the total income is complete with indications of the deductions, rebates, reliefs and adjustments available to the assessee, the calculation of the net tax payable is a process which is mostly arithmetical but generally time consuming. If, therefore, the I.T.O. first draws up an order assessing the total income and indicating the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute the tax payable on that basis and then approves of it, either immediately or some time later, no fault can be found with the process, though it is only when both the computation sheets are signed or initialled by the I.T.O. that the process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that the assessment order was not in any manner vitiated. A brief reference may be made to the decisions on the issue. In Shushil Chandra Ghose v. I.T.O. [1959] 35 ITR 379(Cal), the assessee was served, apart from the assessment order, with a copy of the form known as I.T.N.S. 150 which was not signed by the I.T.O. but the Court upheld the assessment because the original thereof had been duly signed. In Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 217, the "assessment order" did not determine the tax payable and there was no other paper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. In R.Gopal Ramnarayan v. Third I.T.O.[1980] 126 ITR 369(Kar), the Tribunal had annulled an assessment because the tax calculations had been made on a separate sheet of paper but the Department could not raise this issue before the High Court because it had not challenged the Tribunal's order in appropriate proceedings. The Karnataka High Court, however, did have occasion later to consider the question directly and upheld an assessment made in similar circumstances in CIT v. R Giridhar[1984] 145 ITR 246 (Kar), even though the separate sheet containing the tax computatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of verifying and authenticating the correctness of the tax computations resulting in the demand raised against the assessee." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (219 ITR 214) was seized with a situation where the Tribunal went into question as to whether there was an assessment on the H.U.F. for the Assessment year 1955-56 and interalia concluded (i) there was no signed assessment order. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the findings of the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- "12. The High Court based itself upon the demand notice and the acknowledgement slip signed by Phool Singh and observed, "Unless an assessment order was passed under or in pursuance of the Act question of a notice of demand on the prescribed form specifying the High Court did not give due importance to the fact that upon the record produced by the Revenue before the Tribunal there was no signed assessment from. 13. That an assessment order has to be signed is established by the judgment of this Court in Kalyankumar Ray vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 191 I.T.R. 634. It said: "If, therefore, the Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 question No. (III)"Whether the time taken by the ITBA's e-mail software system on 31st March 2021, in despatching the e-mails to the assessee is not attributable to the JAOs and the notices will be deemed to have been issued on 31st March, 2021?- The Court has answered this in the negative against the Department" and the most relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under:- "26.13 Typically, an e-mail service based on SMTP Model utilizes a chain of servers to transmit e- mail from the sender to the recipient. Once an e-mail is drafted and the sender presses the 'send' button, the e-mail service le. the User Agent ('UA') of the sender transmits it to the Message Transfer Agents ('MTAS) Le. servers of the sender's e-mail service. Through a sequence of such MTAs le servers, the e-mail reaches the destination MTA Le server of the recipient's e- mail service. In case the recipient is using an intermediary server, it reaches the intermediary MTA ie. server of the intermediary. It thereafter, finally reaches the recipient. In the case on hand, the Department's e-mail service is the ITBA e-mail software system and the assessee....