2023 (6) TMI 333 - AT - Income Tax

CIT-A Jurisdictional Issue - CIT(A), Ghaziabad or Noida - HELD THAT - This Tribunal 2021 (3) TMI 22 - ITAT DELHI has extensively discussed the impugned issues and has restored the appeals to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A), Ghaziabad. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Anrs 2008 (5) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT held that jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter and the entire proceedings having been initiated illegally and without jurisdiction, and thus are nullities. Thus as following the decisions of Fatima Bibi 2008 (5) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT , United Commercial Bank 1951 (4) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT and Kanwar Singh Saini 2011 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT without entering into the merits of the captioned appeals, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from jurisdictional defect which is not curable having been passed by CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after his compulsory retirements with effect from 11.06.2019, when he was functus officio, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. hence, nullities. We set aside the captioned appeals to the files of the CIT(A) having jurisdiction over the captioned assessee s and decide the issue afresh expediously after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are jurisdictional errors in deciding the appeal, deletion of additions without considering facts, and overlooking the status of the company's shares as penny stocks.

Jurisdictional Error in Deciding the Appeal:
The appeals were preferred against orders of the CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16. The revenue contended that the CIT(A)-1, Noida erred in deciding the appeal without jurisdiction, as the appeal should have been filed with the jurisdictional CIT(A), Ghaziabad. Furthermore, it was argued that the orders were received after the compulsory retirement of the concerned CIT(A), making them illegal and in violation of CBDT's notification. The Tribunal, in a similar case, found that the CIT(A)-1, Noida had no jurisdiction over appeals from Ghaziabad and set aside the orders for fresh consideration by the respective jurisdictional CIT(A).

Deletion of Additions Without Considering Facts:
The revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, including unexplained credit and addition under section 69C of the I.T. Act. They argued that the facts were not adequately considered, citing judgments from the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the merits of the additions but focused on the jurisdictional defects in the orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after his compulsory retirement, rendering them null and void.

Overlooking Status of Company's Shares as Penny Stocks:
The revenue also contended that the CIT(A)-1, Noida overlooked the fact that the company's shares were listed as penny stocks in reports from the Investigation Wing of the department. They referenced judgments from the Madras High Court and ITAT Delhi regarding similar issues. The Tribunal, echoing the findings in the jurisdictional error issue, set aside the orders for reconsideration by the appropriate CIT(A) to ensure a fair hearing for the parties involved.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal found jurisdictional defects in the orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after his compulsory retirement, leading to the nullification of the decisions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were remanded to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.