9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of filing an appeal against an interim order passed by CIT(A). 2. Valuation of closing stock and addition made by the ITO. 3. Objection to the order of remand by Revenue. 4. Admission of new evidence by CIT(A) in violation of IT Rule 46A. Analysis: 1. Competency of filing an appeal against an interim order passed by CIT(A): The respondent-assessee raised a preliminary objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 1979-80, arguing that there was no provision in the Act for filing an appeal against an interim order passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not disposed of the appeal but had ordered a remand for further inquiry. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that the power to file an appeal is against the final substantive order passed by the AAC, not against procedural orders. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal by Revenue against the interim order was not competent. 2. Valuation of closing stock and addition made by the ITO: An addition of Rs. 2,95,811 was made by the ITO due to undervaluation of the closing stock. The assessee contested this addition, claiming that the stock in question did not belong to the firm but to a sister concern. The CIT(A) remanded the case to the ITO for verification. The Tribunal found that the plea raised by the assessee was not new evidence but a reiterated claim made during the assessment proceedings. It was established that the impounded Bahis were crucial for the assessment and not considered new evidence. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's challenge to the order of remand, concluding that the appeal was not justified. 3. Objection to the order of remand by Revenue: Revenue objected to the order of remand by CIT(A), alleging that new evidence was admitted in violation of IT Rule 46A. The Tribunal disagreed with Revenue's stance, emphasizing that the plea raised by the assessee was not new evidence but a previously made claim during assessment. The Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's objection to the order of remand. 4. Admission of new evidence by CIT(A) in violation of IT Rule 46A: The Tribunal clarified that the evidence admitted by CIT(A) was not new but a plea reiterated by the assessee. The Tribunal criticized the confusion caused by the verbosity of CIT(A)'s order but ultimately found that Revenue's challenge to the order of remand was baseless. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the incompetence of Revenue's appeal filing based on the provisions of the Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, highlighting the incompetence of filing an appeal against an interim order passed by CIT(A) and emphasizing the lack of merit in Revenue's objections to the order of remand and admission of evidence.
|
