1983 (7) TMI 95 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal allowed by ITAT Chandigarh, followed by a miscellaneous petition from the Revenue.
2. Dispute over assessments and ad-hoc additions made by the ITO.
3. Arguments presented by the ld. counsel for the assessee and the Departmental Representative.
4. Review of the facts and order passed by the CIT (A).
5. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the additions made by the ITO.
6. Comparison with relevant legal precedents.
7. Decision of the ITAT Chandigarh to allow the appeals.

Analysis:

1. The ITAT Chandigarh allowed the appeals filed by the assessee but faced a miscellaneous petition from the Revenue. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's petition, recalling the earlier order and directing a fresh hearing for the appeals.

2. The dispute centered around the assessments conducted by the ITO, with the ld. counsel for the assessee arguing against the ad-hoc additions made by the ITO. The counsel contended that the assessments deserved to be annulled, highlighting delays in processing and lack of scrutiny.

3. The Departmental Representative countered the arguments, emphasizing the timelines of return filings and the pursuit of assessments by the ITO. Reference was made to the lack of cooperation from the assessee and the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT (A).

4. Upon reviewing the facts and the earlier order, the ITAT Chandigarh found the CIT (A)'s decision unsustainable. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessment process and the arbitrary nature of the ad-hoc additions made by the ITO.

5. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee focused on challenging the additions made by the ITO, citing lack of proper opportunity and arbitrary nature of the additions. The ITO's admission of making additions without deeper scrutiny was also highlighted.

6. The Tribunal compared the case with legal precedents, noting that the additions were ad hoc and lacked scrutiny. The reliance on specific cases by the Departmental Representative was deemed misplaced, emphasizing the need for proper assessment procedures.

7. Ultimately, the ITAT Chandigarh allowed the appeals, concluding that the ad-hoc additions made without scrutiny were not sustainable for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal criticized the CIT (A) for not annulling the additions and granting a second chance to the Revenue without justification.