2013 (9) TMI 1079 - HC - Income Tax

There is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties that let both the appealsappeal preferred by the assessee as well as appeal preferred by the revenue be remanded to the Tribunal and are directed to be heard by the learned Tribunal on merits inclusive of additional ground raised by the assessee with respect to validity of notice under Section 158BD of the Act. While deciding the issue of validity of notice issued under Section 158BD of the Act any additional evidence is required and / or further investigation is required, it will be open for the Tribunal to exercise the powers with respect to the additional evidence available under the Act. Both these appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against ITAT judgment remitting appeals to CIT(A) for validity of notice under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the ITAT judgment remitting the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, remitting the issue to CIT(A) for consideration, while also allowing the revenue's appeal and remitting it back to CIT(A) after the assessee's issue is resolved.

2. The facts leading to the appeals involved the Assessing Officer making additions to the undisclosed income of the assessee, leading to appeals before the CIT(A) and subsequently the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice under Section 158BD, which was not raised before the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer.

3. The assessee argued that the ITAT should have decided the additional ground itself instead of remitting it to the CIT(A). The revenue contended that the validity of the notice under Section 158BD was crucial, and if found in favor of the assessee, the assessment would become null. Both parties agreed that the appeals should be remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.

4. The Court held that the ITAT should have decided the validity issue on merits and not remitted the revenue's appeal back to the CIT(A) without a decision on the merits. Consequently, the Court quashed the ITAT judgment and remitted both appeals back to the Tribunal for a decision on merits, including the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice under Section 158BD.

5. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide both appeals in accordance with the law and on merits, allowing the appeals to the extent mentioned. The Tribunal was given the discretion to consider additional evidence or further investigation if required during the decision-making process. No costs were awarded in this matter.