Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed appeals against multiple orders of the CIT(A) for several assessment years. Both the assessee and the Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) sought adjournments, citing reasons such as lack of preparation due to festive season and administrative duty changes, respectively.
Held
The Tribunal rejected both adjournment requests, noting the assessee's application lacked authorized signatory details and the CIT-DR's reasons were administrative and unfounded. It reversed the CIT(A)'s finding that no incriminating material was found during search (specifically PKRB-05), affirming the validity of assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, all issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that no incriminating material was found to justify assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, and the validity of adjournment requests by both parties.
Sections Cited
Section 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :
These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, dated 16.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022, respectively.
The assessee has filed an adjournment application for all the years under consideration stating therein as follows :-
No authorized signatory name nor details have been provided in the said adjournment application. It must be mentioned here that there is no Vakalatnama of any authorized representative of assessee has been filed in the said cases. The adjournment application being bald, the same is rejected.
The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected.
It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT- DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT- DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi judicial forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. The matters are disposed off on merits on the basis of records and documents available before the Tribunal, ex-parte qua the revenue and assessee.
A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in 452 ITR 212 (SC)/149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) on the ground that there is no incriminating material. A perusal of the assessment orders in all the case shows that the search was conducted in the case of M/s Atibir Industries Company Limited on 17.03.2021 and information has been obtained in the course of search and in the connected searches. Subsequently, the assessment has been done u/s.153A of the Act. A perusal of the grounds raised
by the revenue shows that the incriminating material in the form of PKRB-05 was found from the office of the Chartered Accountant and that major paper work of the assessee company were executed from the said office premises of the Chartered Accountant. As the incriminating materials have been found at the foundation for the assessment, we are of the view that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that no incriminating material have been found or used in the impugned appeals, no more survives. Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in all the impugned appeals stands reversed.
8. Since there is no adjudication of the issues on merits by the ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the issues in all the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The findings of the ld.
CIT(A) applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra, stands reversed. 9. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2025.