SRI.C.P. VISWANATHA MENON,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 589/COCH/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 December 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, as the grounds raised before him were different from those adjudicated in the Section 264 revision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay petition and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as not maintainable because the assessee had previously filed a revision petition under Section 264. The grounds raised before the CIT(A) concerned the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, specifically the absence of a satisfaction note.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable due to a prior revision petition, and whether the assessment under Section 153C was valid without a satisfaction note.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 264,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 10.12.2019Pronounced: 10.12.2019

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 07.08.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012.

2.

The issues raised in this appeal are as follows:-

(i) Whether the CIT (A) is justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

(ii) Whether the CIT(A) has erred in not setting aside the assessment order completed u/s 153C of the I.T.Act, for want of satisfaction note.

(iii) The CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating the issues on merits, namely, the grounds raised by the 2 Sri.C.P.Viswanatha Menon. assessee against the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

(iv) The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153C of the I.T.Act is void ab initio and sine qua non in law as no notice was served on the assessee u/s 153C of the I.T.Act, instead notice was issued u/s 153A of the I.T.Act which is invalid as no warrant of search was issued in the name of the assessee.

3.

At the very outset, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) as not maintainable and he does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. The CIT(A)’s reasoning is that, since the assessee had preferred revision u/s 264 of the I.T.Act, the appeal is not maintainable.

4.

We have perused the revisionary application u/s 264 of the I.T.Act and the order passed by the CIT u/s 264 of the I.T.Act. The order of the CIT passed u/s 264 of the I.T.Act is regarding adjudication of the issue on merits, namely, denial of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on long term capital gains computed. The grounds raised before the CIT(A) is concerning the validity of assessment u/s 153C of the I.T.Act. According to the assessee, no satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of searched person, therefore, assessment completed u/s 153C of the I.T.Act in case of assessee is invalid. Since the grounds raised in the revisionary proceedings u/s 264 of the I.T.Act and the grounds raised before the CIT(A) is different, certainly, the CIT(A) has to adjudicate the grounds raised before him, which 3 Sri.C.P.Viswanatha Menon. are not the subject matter of revision before the CIT in the revisionary proceedings u/s 264 of the I.T.Act. However, we noticed that there is a delay of 600 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) at the first instance shall consider the delay petition filed before him and in the event the delay is condoned by him, he shall consider the legal grounds and other grounds which are not subject matter of revision application before the CIT u/s 264 of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 10th day of December, 2019.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →