2014 (3) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of Appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner passed under Section 119(2)(b) - Held that - order passed by the Commissioner passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act is an administrative and non appealable order. - once the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, thereafter it is not open for the Tribunal to pass any order on merits. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ITAT's order directing Commissioner of Income Tax to consider cases afresh, Appeal maintainability against Commissioner's order under Section 119(2)(b) of I.T. Act, Applicability of Division Bench's decision in Special Civil Application No.8003 of 2013.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with a group of petitions where the Commissioner of Income Tax-II challenged the ITAT's order directing reconsideration of cases, including condonation of delay. The Commissioner had rejected applications for regularization of returns under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act. The ITAT directed fresh consideration, prompting the present challenge by the revenue department (para 2-3).

The petitioner argued that the ITAT erred in entertaining appeals against the Commissioner's administrative order under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, which was held as non-appealable. The petitioner contended that the ITAT lacked jurisdiction in passing the impugned order (para 4).

The Court noted that the ITAT's reliance on a Division Bench decision in Special Civil Application No.8003 of 2013 was misplaced. The Division Bench had observed that the Tribunal's order on rectification application suffered legal defects due to the non-maintainability of the appeal against the Commissioner's order. The Division Bench's decision did not establish a precedent for entertaining such appeals (para 6.1).

Ultimately, the Court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the ITAT's order and ruling that the appeals against the Commissioner's orders were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the Division Bench's decision did not confer appellate jurisdiction on the ITAT in such cases (para 7).