9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1626 - HC - Income TaxEntitled to benefit of Section 80IB(10) - whether Tribunal justified in failing to appreciate that it had remanded the issue back to the file of the AO to reconsider the matter afresh and therefore the AO was justified in adjudicating whether the Assessee was entitled to the deduction ? - Held that - Observations of the Tribunal in the context of the present facts are unexceptional. The officers of the Revenue cannot defy directions of the Tribunal and agitate new issues which result in unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to taxpayers. The Assessing Officer was bound by the directions given in the first order dated 29.10.2010 of the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer was obliged to strictly follow directions and decide issues as directed by the Tribunal. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to rake up new issues which were never the subject matter of the controversy in the first round of litigation and ignore the directions of the Tribunal to examine claim of the Respondent in respect of two issues. Thus, in these facts, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal. It may also be pointed out that Mr. Pinto the learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the dispute on merits stands concluded in favour of the Assessee and against the Appellant-Revenue. This by the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Happy Home Enterprises 2014 (9) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CIT v. Sarkar Builders 2015 (5) TMI 555 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, in these facts entire exercise of preferring these appeals would be academic. No substantial question of law.
Issues:
Challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 16.4.2015 for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The Respondent-Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer initially due to exceeding prescribed limits and incomplete project by 31.3.2008. The Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the decision of its Special Bench in Brahma Associates. However, the Assessing Officer, upon reevaluation, rejected the deduction based on new grounds not previously considered under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the Respondent-Assessee's Appeals, stating that the Respondent was entitled to the deduction as per the decision in Brahma Associates. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer must adhere to the Tribunal's directions and not introduce new issues causing inconvenience to taxpayers. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for filing appeals without proper verification, leading to unnecessary inconvenience. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's observations, noting that the Assessing Officer was obligated to follow the Tribunal's directions from the initial order and could not introduce new issues that were not part of the original controversy. The Court highlighted that the disputes on merits had already been settled in favor of the Respondent-Assessee by previous decisions, making the current appeals academic. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law arising and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer must strictly adhere to the Tribunal's directions to avoid unnecessary harassment to taxpayers. In conclusion, the Court's decision reinforced the importance of following Tribunal directions, avoiding the introduction of new issues, and ensuring that appeals are filed based on proper verification to prevent inconvenience to taxpayers. The Court's ruling highlighted the significance of upholding the decisions made in previous rounds of litigation and discouraged the practice of raising new issues that were not part of the original controversy.
|
