Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Muzaffarnagar dated 01.08.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-
1. That the order under appeal is contrary to law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in dismissing the appeal treating the assessment order u/s. 143(3) as valid one when it is illegal and beyond jurisdiction because of change made by the AO in the disclosed ‘status’ of the appellant in the return filed.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in dismissing the appeal when the jurisdictional notice issued u/s. 143(2) and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, R-1, Muzaffarngar on the basis is, being without empowered u/s. 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. That on whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in rejecting the plea of the appellant that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax issuing the jurisdictional notice u/s. 143(2) and passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) on this basis is an Assessing Officer within the definition of section 2(7a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of the appellant’s case.
5. That the ground taken by the Ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the appellant’s plea referred to in above ground no. 4 is not justified and correct.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in dismissing the appeal when the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) was illegal, invalid and unjustified as having been passed without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down u/s. 124(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the jurisdiction of the JCIT issuing notice u/s. 143(2) was called in question by the appellant u/s. 124(3).
7. That on whole facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,95,047/- on account of surplus over expenditure.
That on whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Ld. Authorities below are not justified and correct in treating and assessing the surplus over expenditure of Rs.
595047/- as income when it is not income falling within the definition of income u/s. 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the hands of the appellant.
That on whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in confirming an addition of Rs. 1223232/- made on account of sentage receipts.
That on whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the ld. Authorities below are not justified and correct in treating and assessing the sentage receipts of Rs. 1224232/- as income when it is not income falling within the definition of income u/s. 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the hands of the appellant.
That the appeal deserves to be allowed and the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted and such other necessary reliefs be allowed for which the appellant is found entitled.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not being repeated here for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw my attention towards para no. 4 page no. 28 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed an application dated 31.5.2014 u/s. 250(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and requested to allow the additional grounds of appeal
which the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated and dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant is unnecessary trying to drag the matter in technicalities and has not made written submission on the merits of the addition and has held that there is no need to pass a specific order u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act and he rejected the provisions of law. He stated that the relevant issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the ITAT. He requested that the issues in dispute require thorough investigation at the level of the Assessing Officer and in support of his claim, he has filed the paper book containing pages 1-32 in which he has attached the various documentary evidences including the case laws on the issues in dispute.
4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the revenue authorities, but did not raise any serious objection on the request of the assessee.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records especially the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book containing pages 1-32 in which the assessee has attached the copy of Synopsis; copy of Rule 8 of UP Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1954; copy of Section 6 of UP Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953; copy of order related to Santag; copy of order High Court Allahabad in case of CIT vs. M/s N.S. Committee; copy of order of ITAT in case of M/s NS Committee vs. ACIT, copy of CIT(A), Order A. No. 5970-8264-1200-117 dated 29.6.2017, for the assessment year 2014-15 and copy of assessment order dated 4.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) by ITO, in the case of assessee, Ward 3(2)(5), Khatauli. Assessee’s Counsel has also certified that the aforesaid documents were filed before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) and no new evidences have been filed in this Paper Book. Keeping in view of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, I am of the view that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the evidences filed by the assessee on the issue in dispute. I am not commenting upon the appreciation of evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of pqaper book, but I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice the aforesaid documents require through investigation at the level of the Assessing Officer, hence, I set aside the