9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1010 - AT - Income TaxProceedings before CIT (E) u/s 264 raising similar grounds as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) - addition made on account of denial of exemption u/s 11 - assessee filed an application before the ld. CIT(A) stating to withdraw the appeals on the ground that the assessee wants to opt for option u/s 264 of the Act - HELD THAT - We notice that the assessee after filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) moved an application for withdrawal of the appeals stating the reason that it wants to file a petition u/s 264 of the Act. This application of the assessee was towards adopting an alternative remedy provided under the Act by way of Section 264. Now if, the ld. CIT(A) had refused to accept such application, then also assessee would have been aggrieved for not having been given the recourse for section 264 - CIT(A) in this case dismissed the appeal has withdrawn considering the application of the assessee opting for an alternative remedy and the issues raised before him will again be the subject matter of adjudication before the ld. CIT(E). We are of the considered view that the application made by the assessee for withdrawal of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), was a conscious effort towards getting relief by taking recourse to Section 264 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has just acted within the four corners of law in order to provide remedy to the assessee, for which it is eligible, u/s 264 of the Act, and he gave the assessee a way for doing the same because without doing so proceedings u/s 264 of the Act could not be initiated in terms of provision of Section 264(4)(b) of the Act. Therefore, by doing so the ld. CIT(A) has acted well within the powers provided u/s 250 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we fail to find any infirmity in the action of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals of the assessee has withdrawn and not dealing with the merits of the case in pursuance to the application for withdrawal filed by the assessee to take recourse u/s 264 of the Act and uphold the same. Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) as withdrawn for pursuing revision petition under Section 264. 2. Validity of the assessment orders and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Adjudication of the grounds of appeal on merits by CIT(A). Summary: 1. Dismissal of Appeals by CIT(A) as Withdrawn for Pursuing Revision Petition under Section 264: The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, filed appeals against the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2018-19. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to opt for revision under Section 264. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeals on merits despite the withdrawal request. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) acted within the law by allowing the withdrawal to enable the assessee to pursue the Section 264 remedy. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee consciously chose to withdraw the appeals to seek relief under Section 264. 2. Validity of the Assessment Orders and Denial of Exemption under Section 11: The assessee's exemption under Section 11 was denied for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2018-19, with the income assessed as taxable at the maximum marginal rate. The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment orders and the denial of exemption before the CIT(A). During the pendency of these appeals, the assessee opted for revision under Section 264, leading to the withdrawal of the appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the issues raised before the CIT(A) were also raised in the revision petition under Section 264, which was ultimately dismissed by the CIT(E). 3. Adjudication of the Grounds of Appeal on Merits by CIT(A): The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, which held that an appellate authority must adjudicate the issues on merits even if the assessee withdraws the appeal. However, the Tribunal distinguished these precedents based on the facts of the case, noting that the assessee's withdrawal was to pursue an alternative remedy under Section 264. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) acted within his powers by dismissing the appeals as withdrawn to facilitate the Section 264 proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2018-19, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) acted within the law by allowing the withdrawal to enable the assessee to pursue the revision under Section 264. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s action and upheld the dismissal of the appeals.
|
