{"id":517,"date":"2023-09-21T01:35:33","date_gmt":"2023-09-20T20:05:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/?p=517"},"modified":"2023-09-21T01:35:35","modified_gmt":"2023-09-20T20:05:35","slug":"sec-246a-did-not-include-within-its-ambit-order-passed-by-cpc-u-s-1399-wherein-itr-was-declared-as-defective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/high-court\/tribunal\/sec-246a-did-not-include-within-its-ambit-order-passed-by-cpc-u-s-1399-wherein-itr-was-declared-as-defective\/","title":{"rendered":"Sec 246A did not include within its ambit order passed by CPC u\/s 139(9), wherein ITR was declared as defective"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hearing an appeal against order of the CIT(Appeals) in rejecting the Assessee\u2019s appeal, the Pune Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench<\/strong> observed that Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, which lists the various orders against which appeal can be filed before the CIT(Appeals), did not include within its ambit an order passed by the Central Processing Unit under Section 139(9) of the Act, wherein an ITR is declared to be defective<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Division Bench of Mr. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member<\/strong> and Dr. Dipak P Ripote, Accountant Member<\/strong>, observed that such order passed by the CPC does not qualify as an order passed by the lower authorities and so was not \u2018appealable\u2019 as per Section 246A of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Appellant-Assessee was represented by Mr. Nikhil S Pathak, Advocate<\/strong>, whereas the Respondent-Revenue was represented by Mr. Ramnath P Murkunde<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Assessee’s appeal, for the relevant AY, arose against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under Section143 (1) of the Act. The ITR filed by the Assessee had been deemed to be defective as per Section 139(9) of the Act. The order so passed was also deemed to not constitute an order appealable as per Section 246A of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) refused to entertain the Assessee\u2019s appeal on grounds of the same not being maintainable as per Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On hearing the contentions of both sides, the Bench observed there to be no dispute about the Central Processing Unit having passed order under Section 139(9) of the Act, treating the Assessee\u2019s ITR as defective. The Bench then drew attention to the provisions of Section 246A, which provides remedy of appeal against order s passed by the lower authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench observed that no part of Section 246A provided an appellate remedy against an order passed under Section 139(9). In these circumstances, the Bench observed that a strict interpretation of the law had to be adopted, in light of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M\/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench then clarified that Section 246A envisaged an appellate remedy before the CIT(Appeals) not based on various consequences faced by an assessee or by way of necessary implications but as per various orders passed by the field authorities under the specified statutory provisions only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With these observations, the Bench upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. However, the Assessee was left at liberty to pursue other avenues of seeking relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cause Title: Amrut Rajendrakumar Bora vs DCIT, Pune [ITA No. 563\/Pun\/2023 \/ 2023-Enterslice-27-ITAT-Pune]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here to read\/download the order<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\nAmrut-Rajendrakumar-Bora-vs-DCIT<\/a>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hearing an appeal against order of the CIT(Appeals) in rejecting the Assessee\u2019s appeal, the Pune Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench observed that Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, which lists the various orders against which appeal can be filed before the CIT(Appeals), did not include within its ambit an order passed by the Central […]<\/p>\n

Read More… from Sec 246A did not include within its ambit order passed by CPC u\/s 139(9), wherein ITR was declared as defective<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":519,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\n","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=517"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":520,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions\/520"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/enterslice.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}