SHRI RUPAM RAJENDRA GORECHA,DAHOD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, DAHOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1918/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 March 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the rectification order is not maintainable as the issue has already been decided. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a rectification order passed by the CIT(A). The issue raised in the rectification application was already adjudicated by the ITAT in a previous appeal concerning the main order.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of an appeal against a rectification order when the underlying issue has already been adjudicated by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir M. Mehta with Shri Priyam Gandhi, A.Rs
Hearing: 06/02/2020Pronounced: 05/03/2020

आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Vadodara, dated 29/06/2018 (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of Assessment Order passed under s.153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt.25/10/2016 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

1.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law not to follow the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of the M.P. High Court resulting into a mistake of law.

2. The Learned CIT9A) ought to have considered the Circular No.24 of 2015, dated 31.12.2015 r.w [2014] 43 taxmann.com 446 (SC) in case of Calcutta Kintwears, with regards to recording of Satisfaction Note resulting into as mistake of law. 3. The impugned order is even otherwise bad, illegal and contrary to law and hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The Appellant has prima facie strong case in his favour, on the merits of the case and the order of CIT(A) rejecting the application has caused miscarriage of justice. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify, withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

on or before the date of hearing of appeal.

6. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal against the order dated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.02.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-4, Vadodara vide case no.ITSSA 151/Ahd/2018

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the impugned appeal is arising against the order of the learned CIT (A) passed under section 154 the Act dated 29th June 2018.

3.

The learned AR also submitted that the original order was passed by the learned CIT (A) under section 250 of the Act dated 27th Feb 2018 which was challenged before the ITAT in IT(SS) number 151/Ahd/2018.

4.

The learned AR further submitted that the issue raised before the learned CIT (A) in the rectification application was also raised before the ITAT by way of filing the additional grounds of appeal which has already been adjudicated by the ITAT in IT(ss)A No. 151/AHD/018 vide order dated 20th July 2019. Accordingly, the learned AR claimed that the impugned appeal filed against the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act before the learned CIT (A) is not maintainable for the simple reason that the issue has already been adjudicated by the ITAT.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR before us has not brought anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned AR.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee before us has raised the issue challenging the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act. However, we note that the assessee has also raised similar issue against the main order of the learned CIT (A) which has already been adjudicated by us in IT(SS) No. 151/AHD/018 vide order dated 24th July thousand 19. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal filed by the assessee against the rectification order passed by the learned CIT (A) under section 154 of the Act is not maintainable. Accordingly we dismiss the same as infructuous.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the Court on 05/03/2020 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →