9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 179 - HC - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - Tribunal observed that because of the earlier order, the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order under Section 154 as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not maintainable - HELD THAT - Assessee having suffered an order at the hands of the CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015 had to necessarily file an appeal to the Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable. Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable when the fact remains the appeal is maintainable and necessarily the Tribunal had to clarify that the Assessing Officer should take a decision in the matter as per the remand order 2011 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT CHENNAI without reference to the order under Section 154 dated 26.07.2010 and the order of the CIT(A) dated 22.01.2015. If this observation had been done by the Tribunal, the present appeal itself could have been avoided. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the assessee and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order 2011 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT CHENNAI after due opportunity to the assessee. No costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 29.01.2016 in ITA.No.1128/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2002-03. 2. Questions of law raised: a. Maintainability of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. b. Changing the status of the Appellant-individual to Appellant-HUF under Section 154 of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order under Section 154 of the Act dated 26.07.2010 confirmed by the CIT(A) on 22.01.2015, citing a previous order by ITAT. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the status change from individual to HUF. The Tribunal's conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable was deemed incorrect as the assessee had to appeal against the CIT(A)'s dismissal. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision erroneous and interfered with it, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for compliance with the ITAT's directions. Issue 2: Changing Status from Individual to HUF The Assessing Officer had changed the assessee's status from individual to HUF under Section 154, which was not raised before the CIT(A). The ITAT directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer after the status change. The High Court clarified that its decision did not determine the status of the assessee, leaving it to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the assessee is an individual or a HUF. The High Court emphasized that the remand order was clear, and the Assessing Officer needed to make a fresh determination on the status, providing the assessee with due opportunity. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, decided in favor of the assessee on the substantial questions of law, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for compliance with the ITAT's directions, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the status issue without any costs incurred. The High Court's decision clarified the maintainability of the appeal and the Assessing Officer's role in determining the status of the assessee.
|
