Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
Assessment Year : 2012-13 Coal Carriers, Main Coal Carriers, Main Road, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1),, 1(1),, At/PO/PS: /PS: Brajarajnagar, Brajarajnagar, Sambalpur. Jharsuguda PAN/GIR No. .AACFC 0436 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 30/09/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2 2024 O R D E R
This is an appea an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A),NFAC,Delhi Delhi dated 8.2.2024 in i Appeal No.CIT(A),Sambalpur/10358/2019 Sambalpur/10358/2019-20 for the assessment year 2012 20 for the assessment year 2012-13.
Shri P.K.Mishra, ld Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 68 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 68 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 68 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition condonation petition 22.8.2024 supported by affidavit and medical 22.8.2024 supported by affidavit and medical certificate stating that certificate stating that as the Managing Partner of the appellant firm was ng Partner of the appellant firm was P a g e 1 | 4 seriously suffered from polyarthiritis and other neuro and orthopedic problem and hospitalized frequently for treatment, he could not be able to take necessary steps for filing the appeal within the time, therefore, there was delay of 68 days. This contention of the assessee has not been found to be false considering the petition and other supported documents. Therefore, the delay of 68 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that, the impugned reassessment order passed by the learned A.O. being without jurisdiction, without the authority of law is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law in confirming the reassessment order and in not quashing it, as such the impugned Appeal order passed by him is not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.
2. For that, the impugned reassessment proceeding initiated and order passed u/s.147/1433) of the Act by the learned A.O. is barred by limitation, as such is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. Further, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law in confirming the same, as such, both orders passed by the Forums below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of Justice. 3 For that, the addition of Rs.6,00,000.00 made by the learned A.O. u/s.68 of the Act and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.
4. For that, section 68 of the Act has no application under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as such, the impugned addition of Rs.6,00,000.00 made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.
P a g e 2 | 4
For that, the Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to add, alter, modify, amend, substitute other grounds of appeal, if any at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.”
5. It is noticed that the assessee has raised grounds in regard to reopening of assessment. A perusal of the Form No.35, which have been raised shows that the grounds in regard to reopening has not been raised before the ld CIT(A). In the legal ground, the assessee has challenged the very reopening of assessment on the ground of change of opinion. It is also noticed that the assessee has raised certain technical grounds on merits also, which has allegedly not been disposed off by the ld CIT(A). It was submitted by ld AR that the legal ground since goes to the route of the matter, can be raised even before the Tribunal, for the first time. This being so, in the interest of justice, the order of the ld CIT(A) is set aside and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee is at liberty to raise all such grounds as so desires i.e. legal, technical grounds and also on merits in the form of additional grounds before the ld CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.