MEENAL SUBHASH AGARWAL,,ICHALKARANJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

We notice that all the appeals is time barred either by 12 or 88 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with condonation of delay petition. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the affidavit and have found that reasons specified therein are justified and that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee neither through intention nor through action. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal late were beyond the control of the assessee and even the Ld. DR stated that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned. In view of the matter, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeals on merits.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that along with the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo, they have also filed additional grounds of appeal. These additional grounds pertains to the issues which were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the first round. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) though has deliberated on the grounds in the appeal memo, however, has not adjudicated the additional grounds filed before him. It is the contention of the Ld. AR of the assessee that call for justice demands that

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that in the first round, the grounds of appeal were adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which were in the appeal memo. That when the matter travelled before the Tribunal, the question arosed regarding validity of service of notice u/s. 143(2) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). That further on technical aspects, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The contention of the Ld. AR of the assessee that the grounds were not adjudicated, is therefore, not correct since the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the second round has only followed the directions of the Tribunal on the technical aspects of service of notice u/s.143(2) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Act.

We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. The assessee had filed additional grounds with respect to these cases before the Sub-ordinate Authorities. In the first round, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) though adjudicated the grounds of appeal in appeal memo, however, there is no mention of adjudication of additional grounds by him. It is also correct that the in the second round, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) followed the directions of the Tribunal regarding validity of service of notice u/s.143(2) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Act and in totality the grievance of the assessee for non adjudicating the additional grounds by the First Appellate Authority still remains open. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that these additional grounds which has bearing with the grounds filed in the appeal memo and also be adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority and therefore, in totality, for all these cases, the additional grounds as well as the other grounds in the appeal memo are remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(Appeals) for adjudication after

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid.