2015 (9) TMI 499 - HC - Income Tax

Additions made on account of brick production, clay excavation, carriage expenses and expenditure on water courses - CIT(A) partly allowed the Assessee s appeal and deleted certain additions made by AO. The CIT (A) also increased the gross profit rate by 1%, resulting in an addition of ₹ 2,95,000 - Held that - It appears that the Revenue s appeal before the ITAT, Delhi was for some reason not heard for many years and it was only on 25th August 2014 that it was taken up for hearing. In the impugned order, the ITAT Delhi notes that the ITAT, Jodhpur had already adjudicated, in the Assessee s appeal, the issues sought to be urged by the Revenue in its appeal regarding the additions made on account of brick production, clay excavation, carriage expenses and expenditure on water courses. It also took note that no application had been filed by the Revenue against the said order dated 21st September 2007 of the ITAT, Jodhpur. The ITAT, Jodhpur already having dealt with the order of the CIT (A) on merits in the Assessee s appeal, and having passed the order dated 21st September 2007 which attained finality, the ITAT, Delhi was right in taking the view that it could not decide the Revenue s appeal assailing the same order of the CIT (A). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in submission of affidavit by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Transfer of jurisdiction of the Assessee from one department to another.
3. Discrepancy in handling appeals by the Assessee and the Revenue before different tribunals.
4. Finality of the order passed by ITAT Jodhpur in Assessee's appeal.
5. Jurisdiction of ITAT Delhi to decide on Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
1. The High Court noted the delay in submitting the unattested affidavit by the Commissioner of Income Tax despite multiple extensions granted by the Court. This delay was highlighted as a procedural issue in the case.

2. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Assessee was transferred from one department to another by the Commissioner of Income Tax. This transfer was made at the request of the Assessee, and the records were duly transferred to the new jurisdiction.

3. An appeal was filed by the Revenue before the ITAT Delhi against the order of CIT (A) Jodhpur. However, the Assessee had already filed an appeal before the ITAT Jodhpur, which was disposed of without knowledge of the pending Revenue's appeal in ITAT Delhi. This discrepancy in handling appeals raised questions regarding procedural fairness.

4. The order passed by ITAT Jodhpur in the Assessee's appeal was deemed final, as it had already adjudicated on the issues raised by the Revenue in its appeal. The Court emphasized the finality of the ITAT Jodhpur's order in the Assessee's case.

5. The ITAT Delhi, upon reviewing the case, concluded that it could not decide on the Revenue's appeal as the issues had already been addressed and finalized by ITAT Jodhpur. The Court agreed with this decision, stating that no legal error was committed by ITAT Delhi, and no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted procedural delays, jurisdictional transfers, and the finality of orders passed by different tribunals as key aspects of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of legal errors.