M/S ARYANAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 15.11.2022 by NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ for short], dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the processing of it’s return of income for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020 vide Intimation dated 17.06.2020.

Sri.Raj, the learned counsel for the assessee, was during hearing unable to explain us, in the absence of the return of income, the adjustment/s made on the processing of the assessee’s return, and which led it to appeal before the ld.CIT(A), i.e., the first appellate authority under the Act.He sought time for placing the same on record, and explain the adjustments which, since confirmed in first appeal, are the subject matter of the instant appeal. It was at this stage found that there is no reference thereto, i.e., the said adjustment/s – despite the assessee raising it before him in its grounds of appeal (per Form 35), in the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) had, instead, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him, and admitting it, proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis that it is an appeal against a regular assessment, delineating the scope and ambit of primary agricultural credit co-

Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper to, vacating the said adjudication, set aside the matter for adjudication afresh, i.e., on merits, back to the file of the first appellate authority. The said authority shall confine itself to the grounds raised by the assessee before it, where and to the extent arising out of the Intimation dated 17/6/2020. The power of the first appellate authority, it is trite law, are co-terminus with that of the assessing authority, and would therefore extend to what the said authority could have done, i.e., under the proceedings initiated by the Revenue, unless the scope thereof stands enhanced by following the due process of law. What cannot be done directly, it is well settled, cannot be done indirectly. Where, however, the ld.CIT(A) is of the opinion that he could travel beyond the adjustment/s made under the Intimation under appeal, or the scope of the processing u/s.143(1)(a), he shall first, upon allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, which was not so in the first instance, do so by rendering his legal findings, conveying thus the legal basis of, or that which informs, his order. That is, this issue, despite our observations expressing our prima facie opinion, which may not be regarded as our final adjudication in the matter, is left open. We decide accordingly.