Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, which had set aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) lacked the power to set aside the case after 01.06.2001 and also raised issues regarding the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and disallowances for donation, bad debts, and ad-hoc expenses.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) lacked the power to set aside the case after 01.06.2001. Consequently, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to raise all legal issues, including the validity of the notice under Section 143(2).
Key Issues
The key issues were the CIT(A)'s power to set aside an assessment after 01.06.2001, the validity of assessment without a Section 143(2) notice, and the correctness of various additions/disallowances.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 36(1)(vii), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: April 29th, 2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 06.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2019.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.
2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and to dwell upon the Written Submission made in respect of all the Grounds taken.
3. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. in respect of Donation amounting to Rs.2,04,565/- on alleged grounds.
4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have confirmed the addition made by the A.O. in respect of claim towards Bad Debts amounting to Rs.8,60,454/- on alleged grounds.
5. For that the claim in respect of Bad Debts was allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have confirmed the disallowances.
6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in setting aside the ground relating to adhoc disallowance of Rs.50,47,818/- made by the A.O. @ 10% out of the total revenue expenses amounting to Rs.5,04,78,178/- on alleged grounds to the A.O.
7. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have set aside the issue relating to adhoc disallowance of Rs.50,47,818/- to the A.O. as there was no provision for setting aside any issue raised by the appellant in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who ought to have adjudicated the ground raised by the appellant.
8. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.”
3. The assessee alleges that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Ld. CIT(A) set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO'), though after 01.06.2001 no such powers are available to the Ld. CIT(A) and the setting aside is illegal. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).