9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1236 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order of CIT(A) - order based on wrong assessment order - Revenue and assessee both attached different assessment orders - mismatch and inconsistency in the contents of para 8 as appearing in the respective assessment orders filed by the parties herein - Whether CIT(A) had adjudicated on the basis of wrong assessment order? - HELD THAT - The case records provides considerable amount of clarity and validity regarding the facts and circumstances of each case in matters of any ambiguity on enquiry. As already examined the contents of para 8 as appearing in the assessment order in the case record and it is matching with the contents of para 8 of the assessment order filed by the Revenue in its appeal memo. Therefore, without any doubt the correct assessment order has to be the one as appearing in the case record. Now, neither the ld.AR nor ld.DR could demonstrate through evidence as to which assessment order had been considered for adjudication by the ld. CIT(A). This kind of situation, have never been encountered with and it is a very serious matter where the records itself are suffering from ambiguity and uncertainty. We are unable to come to the stage of adjudication because firstly it has to be ascertained whether CIT(A) in passing the impugned order has placed reliance on the correct assessment order or not. That, suppose if the ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated on the basis of wrong assessment order, then the impugned order has to be quashed as being non est and the correct assessment order has to be restored. How a wrong assessment order could have been sent to the assessee by the Department ? - Considering these circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file to verify the issues enumerated in the foregoing paras of this order and adjudicate denovo complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly for both the matters filed before this Bench. Before parting we state that given the seriousness of the ambiguity and uncertainty in the present circumstances, this Bench also does not rule out the possibility of occurrence of any malpractice or fraud committed through manipulating the contents of the assessment order. Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved: Ambiguity in assessment orders leading to mismatched contents, determination of correct assessment order for adjudication by the CIT(A), possibility of fraud or malpractice in manipulating assessment order contents.
The judgment pertains to two appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09 arising from the order of CIT(A). The main issue highlighted was the glaring defect in the documents filed on record, specifically concerning the assessment orders dated 18/03/2014. The discrepancy in the contents of para 8 of the assessment orders filed by the Department and the assessee raised questions regarding the accuracy and authenticity of the assessment order considered for adjudication by the CIT(A). The assessment order filed by the Department contained crucial facts leading to an addition, while the assessment order filed by the assessee presented different and mismatched information. The discrepancy in the assessment orders prompted a thorough examination of the case records to ascertain the correct assessment order for adjudication. The inability of the parties to demonstrate which assessment order was considered by the CIT(A) raised concerns about the validity of the adjudication. The Tribunal observed that the situation of ambiguity and uncertainty in the records was serious and unprecedented. In light of the discrepancies, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. The possibility of malpractice or fraud in manipulating the assessment order contents was not ruled out, leading to an order for a thorough enquiry by the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to uphold fairness, justice, and judiciousness. Ultimately, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in open court on 18th October 2023.
|
