Jurisdictional Issue can be raised in ITAT Miscellaneous Petition despite HC involvement: ITAT

Case Details: YCH Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2023] 148 taxmann.com 118 (Chennai-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Mahavir Singh, Vice President & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member
  • Ajit Kumar Jain, CA for the Appellant.
  • Dr S. Palani Kumari, CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee, a private limited company engaged in providing services related to logistics, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee was involved in an international transaction with Associate Enterprises, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

Later, Assessing Officer (AO), along with the draft assessment order, passed the final assessment order by raising demand under section 156 and also initiated penalty proceedings. On appeal, the Tribunal partly allowed assessee’s appeal. Assessee moved miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal.

The assessee also challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court, wherein the High Court recalled the issue of claim of deduction under section 10AA and sustained the miscellaneous petition order where the Tribunal had already recalled the issue of TP adjustment for fresh adjudication.

In the instant appeal, the assessee had filed additional grounds on the issue of jurisdiction of AO in framing the final assessment order. Department contended that once the matter travelled up to the High Court and the assessee had not raised the issue of jurisdiction either before the Tribunal or before the High Court, the assessee was totally precluded from raising the jurisdictional issue now after almost 10 years.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that once High Court had set aside the original order of the Tribunal and also confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal in the miscellaneous petition, the appeal before the Tribunal becomes alive and pending from the date of inception, i.e., from the date of filing of the appeal.

Further, the jurisdictional provision enacted in public interest could never be waived and is always open to challenge even if the issue has not been raised in the first round. It is always open to question or challenge the jurisdictional proceedings as long as the matter has not reached finality.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • P. V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.) (para 5.3)
  • Hemal Kinitting Industries v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 127 ITD 160 (Chennai) (TM) (para 5.4)
  • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 66 Taxman 27/199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB) (para 5.5) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • YCH Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [M.A. No. 218 (Mds.) of 2016, dated 4-4-2017] (para 2)
  • Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85/[1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) (para 3)
  • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) (para 3)
  • CIT v. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) (para 3)
  • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 66 Taxman 27/199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB) (para 3)
  • Ashok Vardhan Birla v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 958 (Bom.) (para 3)
  • Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 69 Taxman 135/204 ITR 312 (Bom.) (para 3)
  • CIT v. Govindram Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1982] 9 Taxman 86/[1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.) (para 3)
  • P.V. Doshi v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.) (para 5.3)
  • Hemal Kinitting Industries v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 127 ITD 160 (Chennai) (TM) (para 5.4)
  • Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Co. Nos. 34 & 35 (Pun.) of 2019, dated 29-8-2019] (para 8)
  • Perfetti Van Melle (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 9116 (Delhi) of 2019, dated 11-8-2020] (para 8)
  • Mavenir India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 203 (Delhi) of 2020, dated 28-9-2020] (para 8)
  • Skoda Auto India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 546 (Pun.) of 2014, dated 2-7-2019] (para 8)
  • Eaton Industrial Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 536 (Pun.) of 2014, dated 12-4-2018] (para 8)
  • Sandvik Asia (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 467 & 564 (Pun.) of 2015, dated 25-1-2018] (para 8)
  • Dy. CIT v. Rehau Polymers (P.) Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 23 (Pune – Trib.) (para 8)
  • Soktas India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 19/162 ITD 366 (Pune – Trib.) (para 8)
  • Aker Powergas (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 599 (Mum. – Trib.) (para 8).