9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 8 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Rectification order u/s 154 of the Act doctrine of merger - merger of an order with an order in appeal - Sundry expenses Disallowance out of welfare expenses Held that - The addition was mentioned at 3 different places in the assessment order - against the order of CIT(A), Revenue had preferred appeal before ITAT but however Revenue did not raise the ground with respect to disallowance on account of sundry expenses before Tribunal - Section 154(1A) of the Act specifically provides that any matter which has not been considered and decided in any proceedings by way of appeal or revision filed against an order referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Act may be amended by the authority passing such an order in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Act - the authority passing an order may amend that part of the order which has not been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision against such order the matter of adhoc disallowance out of sundry expenses was considered and decided by CIT(A) in appellate proceedings thus, the AO had erred in framing revision order passed u/s 154 Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of disallowance of welfare expenditure by invoking Section 154 of the Act. 2. Jurisdiction of lower authorities in invoking Section 154 on debatable matters. 3. Consideration of submissions and principles of natural justice by lower authorities. Issue 1: Rectification of disallowance of welfare expenditure by invoking Section 154 of the Act: The appellant, a Co. Op. Society, filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of administrative and welfare expenses. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) rectified the disallowance under Section 154, increasing it from Rs. 73,064 to Rs. 7,30,641 due to an apparent mistake. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the issue was an arithmetical mistake and not a legal debate. The appellant contended that the rectification under Section 154 was erroneous as the matter had been decided in previous proceedings. The tribunal held that since the matter was considered and decided by CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings, the A.O. erred in passing the revision order under Section 154. Thus, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of lower authorities in invoking Section 154 on debatable matters: The Assessee challenged the invocation of Section 154 by the lower authorities on debatable issues. The tribunal noted that Section 154 allows amendment of matters not considered or decided in previous proceedings. In this case, the matter of adhoc disallowance of sundry expenses had been considered and decided by CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the A.O. erred in invoking Section 154 on a matter that had already been addressed in previous proceedings. The tribunal held that the A.O. exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the revision order under Section 154, leading to the allowance of the Assessee's appeal. Issue 3: Consideration of submissions and principles of natural justice by lower authorities: The Assessee contended that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the submissions, explanations, and information provided, breaching the principles of natural justice. The tribunal observed that the A.O. and CIT(A) had not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case before passing their orders. By deleting the addition made by the A.O. without sufficient justification, the lower authorities had overlooked crucial details submitted by the appellant. The tribunal found that the actions of the lower authorities were in clear breach of law and principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of their orders and the allowance of the Assessee's appeal. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, highlighting errors in the rectification of disallowance under Section 154, the jurisdiction of lower authorities in debatable matters, and the failure to consider submissions and principles of natural justice. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper consideration of facts and adherence to legal procedures in tax assessment proceedings.
|
