DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

section 251(1)(a). It is held that power of the AAC is co- terminus with that of the ITO. If that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the ITO. An appellate authority while hearing an appeal against

S.B. BHATTACHARJEE MEMORIAL TRUST FOR CHILDREN EDUCATION ,DIGBOI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251(1)(a) of the Act, the Id. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, therefore, though, it was not possible to entertain the audit report while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, but the Id. CIT(A) was well within

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act, that there is no reason as to why the appellate commissioner cannot Page 3 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. modify the assessment order or admit an additional ground even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. According to the Apex Court, no exception could

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined