Case Law Details
CIT Vs Rapsican Systems Inc. US (Telangana High Court)
The case involves a batch of four appeals filed by the Revenue challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in matters concerning assessment proceedings. The central issue was whether the upload of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could be treated as equivalent to receipt of those directions by the Assessing Officer, even when the directions became visible in the system at a later date.
The Revenue argued that although the DRP directions were uploaded earlier, they were not visible to the Assessing Officer until 05.07.2022. It was also contended that DRP proceedings involved manual processes such as manual dispatch or upload, and therefore, the upload date should not automatically be treated as the date of receipt. The Revenue questioned whether an earlier date like 30.06.2022 could be considered the date of receipt in such circumstances.
During the hearing, it was pointed out that the issue had already been decided by the same High Court in earlier writ petitions decided on 09.01.2025. The Revenue did not dispute that the matter had been settled by the Division Bench. However, it submitted that the earlier decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court and was pending consideration in a Special Leave Petition.
The Court observed that since the identical issue had already been adjudicated in earlier cases, there was no reason to take a different view in the present appeals. Accordingly, it applied the earlier judgment and held that the question of law raised by the Revenue stood decided against it.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel representing Mr. T.Pradyoth, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
2. These batch of four appeals have been filed by the Revenue assailing the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in M.A.No.61/HycV2024 and M.A.No.62/Hyd/2024, decided on 18.03.2025 and ITA Nos.587 and 588 of 2022, decided on 23.07.2024.
3. The question of law raised by the appellant is — whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the upload of DRP directions being equivalent to the receipt by the Assessing Officer, even though the record shows that the directions became visible to the Assessing Officer only on 05.07.2022. Likewise, in the appeal pending before the ITAT, the question of law agitated was whether the materials relied upon by the assessee pertain to manual dispatch/manual upload at the DRP’s end and that when DRP proceedings being initiated through manual entry, the DRP’s order does not automatically reflect in the Assessing Officer’s case history module, thereby rendering 30.06.2022 incapable of being treated as the date of receipt by the Assessing Officer.
4. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing as would reflect from the proceedings drawn by this Bench on the previous date of hearing, it has been pointed out that the said issue stands decided by this High Court in a couple of writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.44891 and 44915 of 2022, decided on 09.01.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant Revenue does not dispute the fact that the issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this High Court. However, he submits that the matter has been subjected to challenge and it is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21530 of 2025.
6. Given the fact that identical set of matter has already been decided by this High Court, we see no reason why the same order should not be made applicable in the present set of appeals as well. However, as regards the matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it goes without saying that the decision rendered by this Bench would, however, be subject to outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal, where there is already a challenge to identical set of facts on an order passed by this High Court.
7. In view of the same, the question of law being agitated by the appellant Revenue in this batch of appeals stands decided against the Revenue in terms of the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.44891 and 44915 of 2022. However, the rider mentioned above so far as the matter is seized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned would be applicable in this case also.
8. These appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
