2023 (5) TMI 958 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal arising out of the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) as different from the appeal against the order under section 154 - CIT-A disposed off appeal in limine - parallel appeal filed against rectified order u/s 154 for the same assessment year has been disposed off - whether CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits by observing that the issues raised in this appeal are identical to the issue raised in the appeal arising out of order u/s 154? HELD THAT - Before the CIT(A), assessee had filed 2 appeals. One appeal arising out of the order under section 154 of the Act and the other arising out of the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. We have perused the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A) in both the appeals. We find the grounds raised before the CIT(A) as against the order u/s 154 and out of appeal against order under section 143(3) of the Act are different. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by holding that since the issue of additions are similar in both the appeals, this appeal is dismissed in limine . As given to understand the appeal as against the order under section 154 of the Act before the CIT(A) is still pending and has not been disposed off. Taking into consideration the grounds of appeal as against the present appeal (arising out of the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act), is being different from the appeal against the order under section 154 of the Act, we restore this appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds raised before him on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the delay in filing an appeal, condonation of delay, and dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without considering merits.

Delay in filing appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 738 days, and the assessee sought condonation of delay due to various reasons, including health issues and professional preoccupations. The authorized representative explained the circumstances leading to the delay, including the rectification process under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT, considering the justifications provided, condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the case on merits.

Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A):
The grounds raised by the assessee highlighted several issues with the CIT(A)'s order, including dismissing the appeal in limine without examining the merits of the grounds raised against the assessment order. The CIT(A) erroneously assumed that the issues in the appeal were similar to those in another appeal filed under section 154 of the Act. However, upon review, it was found that the grounds raised in both appeals were different. The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the distinct issues raised in each appeal. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the grounds raised in the appeal against the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the CIT(A) to review the grounds raised by the assessee on their merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering each appeal separately based on the issues raised, rather than assuming similarities between different appeals. The decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A).