Ita/82/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur v. M/S. Ravi Metallics Ltd

Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 82 of 2022 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Ainthapali, Sambalpur …. Appellant Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax)-versus- ….Respondent M/s. Ravi Metallics Ltd., Rourkela Mr. R.P. Kar, Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 15.02.2023 1. This appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 30[th] May, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) allowing ITA No.34/CTK/2021 filed by the Respondent-Assessee challenging an order dated 29[th] March, 2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Sambalpur under Section 263 of the Income Tax, 1961 (Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue. Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue. 3. The ITAT has in the impugned order noted that notice was issued under Section 263 of the Act to the Assessee only on 1[st] March, 2019. For filing a reply to the notice, the Assesse had sought time till 29[th] March, 2019 to produce bills to substantiate the Assessee’s under Section 263 of the Act to the Assessee only on 1[st] March, 2019. For filing a reply to the notice, the Assesse had sought time till 29[th] March, 2019 to produce bills to substantiate the Assessee’s pleas. However, the PCIT appears to have passed the Balaram aforementioned order on that date itself i.e., 29[th] March, 2019 without referring to the bills sought to be produced by the Assessee. The ITAT has correctly noticed that the additions proposed to the PCIT and the issues raised by him “has not resulted into any addition in the assessment”, the observation of the ITAT that even if the PCIT had undertaken a cursory verification of the details produced, the PCIT himself would have dropped the proceedings, appears to be correct. 4. The Court is unable to find any substantial question of law arising from the impugned order of the ITAT that requires to be considered by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge