2019 (3) TMI 586 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - order of reassessment additions principally by disallowing certain expenditure and the Assessee s claim of depreciation - Tribunal allowed Respondent s appeal by holding that, proceedings for reassessment were not invalid but do not deal with the merits of the additions made by the AO which were deleted by the CIT(A) - whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing Revenue s Appeal and reversing the order of CIT(A) without examination of disputed additions? HELD THAT - Whether the Assessee was correct in carrying such expression or not, is not important. What is important is that, with or without arguments, the Tribunal has not disposed of aspects of deletions by the CIT(A) on merits. In plain terms, without reversing CIT(A) s order in this respect, the Tribunal could not have allowed the Revenue s appeal. The Assessee had not got any answer from the Tribunal, regarding the justification of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, on which, the Assessee had succeeded in Appeal before the CIT(A). Under the circumstances, the question is answered in favour of the Assessee. The Judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Respondent s appeal is revived and restored to the Tribunal for consideration of the merits of the additions which were deleted by the CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
Validity of reassessment proceedings and merits of additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The Appellant, a Limited Company, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and later issued a notice under Section 148 for reassessment. The reassessment order disallowed certain expenditure and the Assessee's claim of depreciation. The CIT(A) held the reassessment proceedings invalid and also found the Assessing Officer's actions unjustified. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the Assessee was entitled to depreciation and criticizing the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses without valid reasons.

Merits of Additions Made by the Assessing Officer:
The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings but did not address the merits of the additions deleted by the CIT(A). The Assessee filed a rectification application before the Tribunal, reiterating both the questions of reassessment validity and the merits of the additions. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application, leading the Assessee to file an appeal. The High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to examine the correctness of the CIT(A)'s conclusions on both grounds. The Tribunal's decision to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings on reassessment validity without discussing or concluding on the merits of the additions was deemed erroneous.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, reviving and restoring the Respondent's appeal to the Tribunal for a thorough consideration of the merits of the additions deleted by the CIT(A). The Court rejected the argument that the Revenue's appeal was solely focused on the legality of the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing that the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order was also at stake. The Court allowed the appeal in favor of the Assessee, highlighting the importance of addressing all aspects of deletions made by the CIT(A) on merits before allowing the Revenue's appeal.