2017 (5) TMI 711 - AT - Income Tax

Non-compliance with the provisions of Sec. 245D(2D) - Order of Settlement Commission - Revival of appeal after abatement of proceeding - Held that - It is quite clear that the words Under exceptional circumstances used by our coordinate Bench is in relation to passing or non-passing of the order by the Settlement Commission and not in relation to the revival of proceeding before the income-tax authorities which, even according to our coordinate Bench, gets revived automatically . Therefore, on the point of law as manifested by Sec.245HA(2) of the Act as well as on the reading of the order of Tribunal dated 13.4.2010 (supra), we find that the CIT(A) has mis-directed himself in refusing the revival of appeal after abatement of proceeding before the ITSC. Under these circumstances, we, therefore, deem it fit and proper to accept the preliminary plea of assessee for remanding the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for consideration afresh since he has not passed any order on the merits of the dispute before him. As a consequence, we set-aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for a decision afresh in accordance with law. We may clarify here that our decision to remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) is no reflection on the merits of the assessment, which shall be decided by the CIT(A) as per law. In the result, appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 1986-87 is allowed as above.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits after the abatement of the Settlement Petition.
2. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in holding that there were no exceptional circumstances to revive the appeal.
3. Various factual disputes regarding additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Appeal Without Considering Merits:
The primary grievance of the assessee was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous without considering its merits after the Settlement Commission abated the petition. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the initial appeal due to the pending proceedings before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). However, after the ITSC proceedings abated, the assessee sought to revive the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should have revived and disposed of the appeal in accordance with the law, as mandated by Section 245HA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which states that once proceedings before the ITSC abate, the case should be disposed of as if no application under Section 245C had been made.

2. Exceptional Circumstances for Revival of Appeal:
The CIT(A) held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the revival of the appeal. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect, clarifying that the phrase "exceptional circumstances" used in the Tribunal's earlier order referred to the passing or non-passing of the order by the Settlement Commission, not the revival of proceedings before the income-tax authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) misinterpreted the Tribunal's previous order and Section 245HA(2), which does not require any exceptional circumstances for the revival of the appeal.

3. Factual Disputes Regarding Additions Made by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, including but not limited to:
- Unsubstantiated rental income and pagdi receipts.
- Additions made without proper opportunity to present evidence.
- Additions for investments in properties and movable assets not belonging to the assessee.
- Incorrect interest calculations under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of these factual disputes, as the CIT(A) had not yet considered them. Instead, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and a decision on these grounds in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal on its merits as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal clarified that its decision to remand the matter was not a reflection on the merits of the assessment itself. This decision applied mutatis mutandis to the appeals for Assessment Years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which had similar facts and circumstances.