2014 (6) TMI 566 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s 147 of the Act - Issues not properly addressed by CIT(A) Jurisdiction of the AO Held that - Various legal propositions have been discussed by the CIT(A), however, the specific challenge posed to the jurisdiction of the AO vide the abovementioned grounds raised before the CIT(A) by way of revised additional grounds have not been adjudicated upon thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the direction to decide the said grounds raised before him by way of a speaking order - only difference in the case of Raj Kumar Suneja is that the AO made an addition considered as bogus accommodation entries from M/s Batra Investment vide his order u/s 143(3)/147 wherein also before the CIT(A) by way of the specific grounds similar grounds were raised which it was argued have not been decided by the CIT(A) and an identical request that the issue may be restored Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals filed by two different assesses against CIT(A) orders for the 1999-2000 assessment year.
- Sole issue argued in both appeals was regarding the non-disposal of certain grounds of appeal by CIT(A).
- Specific grounds raised before CIT(A) challenging the assessment under section 143(3)/147.
- Non-adjudication of specific challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer by CIT(A).
- Request for restoration of the issue back to CIT(A) for a speaking order.
- Addition of bogus accommodation entries by the Assessing Officer from M/s Batra Investment in one case.
- Request for restoration of the issue not opposed by the department.
- Appeals allowed for statistical purposes.

Analysis:

1. The appeals in this case were filed by two different assesses against the CIT(A) orders for the 1999-2000 assessment year. The main issue raised in both appeals was the non-disposal of certain grounds of appeal by CIT(A), which were identical in both cases. The assesses challenged the orders on the basis that the CIT(A) had erred in not disposing of specific grounds of appeal, leading to a request for the orders to be set aside.

2. Specific grounds challenging the assessment under section 143(3)/147 were raised before the CIT(A) by the assesses. These grounds highlighted errors made by the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment without serving mandatory notices, making additions without proper consideration of evidence, and not providing opportunities for the assesses to be heard or cross-examine parties involved. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on these specific challenges to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.

3. Due to the non-adjudication of the specific challenges by the CIT(A), the appeals requested the restoration of the issue back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The assesses sought a fair opportunity to present their case and have the grounds of appeal addressed in accordance with the law.

4. In one of the cases, the Assessing Officer made an addition of bogus accommodation entries from M/s Batra Investment. Similar to the other case, specific grounds challenging this addition were raised before the CIT(A) but were not decided upon. The department did not oppose the request for restoration of the issue, leading to a decision to send the issue back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

5. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the orders were set aside for further review and clarification by the CIT(A). The assesses were granted the opportunity to have their grounds of appeal addressed through a speaking order in accordance with the law.