2018 (5) TMI 1827 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - The view of CIT(A) with regard to specific direction for non-assumption of jurisdiction is incorrect when there is contradictory directions on the same issue. As per the decided case laws the direction is in favour of the assessee has to be considered and benefit of doubt should be allowed to the assessee. CIT was not intended to give any specific direction and the direction was to remit the matter back to the file of the A.O. to re-do the assessment afresh de-novo. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) is vested with the jurisdiction and duty bound to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh on merits. The assessee is free to take up all the grounds relating to merits before the CIT(A). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to assessment year 2010-11.
- Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) based on specific remand of CIT.
- Interpretation of directions given by CIT in the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to decide appeal on merits.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessing officer had estimated the income and allowed depreciation, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) later directed the AO to add depreciation and re-determine the income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the decision of the AO was based on a specific remand of the CIT and therefore not appealable.

2. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) misinterpreted the directions given by the CIT in the order under section 263. The CIT had directed the AO to add depreciation but also to redo the assessment de-novo, indicating that the assessment had to start afresh. The appellant contended that this nullified the specific direction to add depreciation, allowing for all legal remedies, including appeal before the CIT(A).

3. The Tribunal analyzed the directions given by the CIT in detail. It noted that the CIT directed the AO to add depreciation but also set aside the assessment for a de-novo assessment, implying a fresh start. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, especially when there were contradictory directions in the CIT's order. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee, allowing for all legal remedies.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh on merits. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee was free to raise all grounds relating to merits before the CIT(A), ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of interpreting directions in legal orders accurately and ensuring that the assessee's right to appeal and present arguments on merits is upheld.