Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs.19.90 Crores for AY 2014-15, which was deleted by the CIT(A) by relying on a previous appellate order for AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) had also accepted the assessee's case based on a favorable remand report from the Assessing Officer. The facts for AY 2015-16 were identical.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report supported the assessee's case. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue is an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report supports the assessee's case, leading to the deletion of an addition by the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The revenue is in further appeal before us for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 & 2015-16. The assessee has preferred cross-objections against the same. First, we take up revenue’s appeal for AY 2014-15 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [CIT(A)] on 06-08-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30-12-2017. The sole grievance of the revenue is deletion of addition of Rs.19.90 Crores as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. 2. Upon perusal of para 6.19, it could be ascertained that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted impugned addition of stock, inter-alia, by relying upon the first appellate order for AY 2013-14. We find that first appellate order for AY 2013-14 was challenged by revenue which has been adjudicated by us in vide order dated 12-02-2025 as under: - 3. It next emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A) has gone by the Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report accepting the assessee’s case on merits submitted in the lower appellate proceedings as the learned CIT(A) himself extracted the same at page 43 of the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, we quote CIT vs. D. M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar.)(HC) and Smt. B. Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) to hold that the Revenue could hardly be held as an aggrieved party in such instance of the Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report supporting the assessee’s case. We accordingly conclude that the Revenue’s instant appeal could not be accepted for the very precise reason the same stand rejected therefore.
Coming to the assessee’s Cross Objection No. 65/Agr./2019 and Revenue’s latter appeal ITA No.150/Agr./2019 both the learned representatives submit during the course of hearing that they do not need to be pressed since involving consolidated proceedings once we have confirmed the lower appellate findings subject to all just exceptions. Ordered accordingly.
These Revenue’s “lead” appeal ITA No.151/Agr./2019 is dismissed. It’s latter appeal ITA No.150/Agr./2019 and assessee’s Cross Objection No. 65/Agr./2019 are dismissed as rendered infructuous in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
This being the case, we confirm the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) for this year also. The assessee’s cross-objection stands dismissed as infructuous.
It is admitted position that facts in AY 2015-16 are quite identical. Therefore, taking the same view, we confirm the impugned order for this year also. The assessee’s cross-objection stands dismissed as infructuous.
4. Both the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. The assessee’s cross- objections stand dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.