9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 557 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order of AO - AO has failed to make the addition on those issues for which the Tribunal has set aside the appeal to the file of the AO and AO has made altogether different additions and thus exceeded his jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the additions made in the set aside assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 254 of the Act dated 27.11.2018 were totally different than what have been restored by the tribunal to the file of the AO vide order 2018 (3) TMI 1929 - ITAT MUMBAI . In our opinion the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and the appellate order is not sustainable on the ground that AO have made all new additions than what have been restored to the file of the AO by the Tribunal. AO jurisdiction to make assessment with regard to the issues which are referred to the AO by the tribunal is very limited and confined to the set aside issues and AO has no power to add any other amount other than what has been restored. If the AO does so he exceeds the jurisdiction which he is not empowered under the law. Thus we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that order passed by the AO is invalid and void ab-initio.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) in making additions beyond the scope of the issues set aside by the Tribunal. 2. Whether the AO exceeded jurisdiction by making new additions not subject to the set aside proceedings. 3. Applicability of legal principles in cases of de novo assessments and the powers of the AO and CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal questioned the validity of the order of the AO and CIT(A) concerning additions made beyond the issues set aside by the Tribunal. The AO made different additions not subject to the set aside proceedings, leading to the dispute. The CIT(A) justified the AO's actions by stating that the earlier order loses its character in a de novo assessment, allowing the AO to assess previously unaddressed income. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable due to the new additions made by the AO, contrary to the Tribunal's directions. Issue 2: The Tribunal cited the case of M/s. Gemini Oils Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that the AO's jurisdiction is limited to the issues referred by the Tribunal. Making additional assessments beyond the set aside issues exceeds the AO's authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's actions in adding new amounts not part of the original assessment or set aside issues were beyond his jurisdiction, rendering the order invalid and void ab-initio. Issue 3: The Tribunal referred to various High Court decisions, including CIT vs. Mansa Ram and Sons, CIT vs. Hope Textile Ltd., and CIT vs. Jawaharlal Nagpal, to support the limited jurisdiction of the AO in making assessments post-set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and held the AO's actions as invalid and void ab-initio, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the directions provided by the Tribunal in de novo assessments. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) due to the AO's exceeding jurisdiction by making new additions not part of the original assessment or set aside issues. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the AO's authority is confined to the issues referred by the Tribunal in de novo assessments, emphasizing the need for compliance with Tribunal directions to ensure the validity of assessment orders.
|
