SOGO COMPUTERS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 847/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 March 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adjudicated the grounds on merits, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed because the grounds raised were not considered to emanate from the Assessing Officer's order. The assessee had raised issues regarding incorrect income computation and TDS credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) can dismiss grounds of appeal without adjudicating them on merits. The scope of the CIT(Appeals)'s power to entertain grounds not directly arising from the AO's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254,Section 251

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, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 09.03.2021Pronounced: 09.03.2021

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru dated 31.01.2017 on the following grounds:-

“On facts and in law, 1] The learned Assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in not giving the effect to the findings during the assessment which reduces the taxable income by Rs. 1, 19,67,620/- but considered on the findings which increases the taxable income.

2] The learned Assessing officer has eared in law and on facts in not giving the credit for the TDS as per 26AS for Rs.23,37,041/- at the time of assessment and give credit to only Rs. 22,72,562/- as per the return of income filed. 3] Without prejudice, the learned Assessing officer has erred in law and facts in taxing Rs.1,19,67,620/- which was not taxable income as per the Income Tax Act 1961. 4] Without prejudice, the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal stating that the grounds of appeal do not emanate from the order of the AO without considering the ground on merit. 5] Without prejudice The learned CIT (Appeals)Bangalore 6 failed to allow U/s 251 of the income tax act 1961 the claim made to him to reduce the income by Rs.1,19,67,620/- being the excess income offered by increasing the value of the closing stock by mistake. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

2. None appeared for the assessee. We proceed to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record.

3.

The facts of the case are that the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the CIT(Appeals):-

“On facts and in law, 1] The order u/s 143(3) passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax opposed to law and fact of the case. 2] The learned Deputy. Commissioner of income Tax erred in not giving the effects to the mistakes happened in the computation of to the extent of Rs. 1,19,67,620/-. 3] The learned Deputy Commissioner of income Tax erred in not giving the credit as per 26As for TDS of Rs.23,37,041 but gave credit only the amount claimed in the return of income Rs.22,72,562/- 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

.”

4. However, these grounds are dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) on the reason that these grounds are not emanating from the assessment order. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

In our opinion, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised before him on merits instead of dismissing the same in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that the claim for deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by the AO otherwise than by filing a revised return. However, this does not in any way limit the power of Tribunal u/s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Being so, we remand the issue in dispute to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of March, 2021.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →