2015 (3) TMI 1380 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of additional grounds in limine by CIT-A - CIT (Appeals) rejected the three additional grounds of appeal on the ground that omission to take these grounds originally in Appeal is wilful and unreasonable. - HELD THAT - The grounds of appeal nos. 1,2 and 3 as made out before the Tribunal were verbatim repetition as grounds of appeal which were raised by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) we find that this was not the basis of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal in respect of grounds 1,2 and 3. The submission on the part of the revenue is hypertechnical and not appreciated as it defeats the purpose and object of the hierarchy of authorities created under the Act to redress the grievances of the assessee. The question as formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent it rejects ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the same are restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal. It may be pointed out that the CIT (Appeals) after having rejected the Appellant's additional grounds proceeds further to deal with the ground nos.1, 2 and 3 and rejects the same on merits. This is an additional reason that the Tribunal ought to have considered grounds 1,2 and 3 raised by the Appellant on merits which it failed to do. On the aforesaid issue alone the appeal is restored to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to hear the Appellant and pass a fresh order on ground nos. 1,2 and 3 urged by the appellant as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for block period of 1.4.1987 to 8.12.1997 - Maintainability of grounds of appeal before Tribunal - Rejection of additional grounds by CIT (Appeals) - Consideration of grounds of appeal by Tribunal - Justification for setting aside impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for a specific block period. The appellant raised questions regarding the maintainability of certain grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which were rejected by the CIT (Appeals). The High Court found that the Tribunal had not considered the appellant's appeal with respect to these grounds, leading to a substantial question of law. The High Court directed the Tribunal to hear and decide on these grounds expeditiously.

The High Court noted that the grounds in question were initially raised as additional grounds before the CIT (Appeals) and were rejected by the CIT (Appeals) on the basis of wilful omission. The appellant contended that the CIT (Appeals) should have considered these grounds on their merits, which the Tribunal failed to do. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal based on the grounds being rejected by the CIT (Appeals) was unjust and set aside the impugned order for fresh disposal of the appellant's grounds of appeal.

The High Court addressed the objection raised by the revenue's counsel, emphasizing that the grounds before the Tribunal were not verbatim repetitions of those raised before the CIT (Appeals). The High Court found the revenue's objection to be hypertechnical and not in line with the purpose of the hierarchy of authorities under the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the grounds for fresh disposal by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order to the extent it rejected the appellant's grounds of appeal, directing the Tribunal to hear the appellant and issue a fresh order on the specified grounds within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering grounds of appeal on their merits and ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant in tax matters.