9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, in the system of adjudication under the Act - The Tribunal ought to have addressed two aspects in this regard - There was no basis for it to refuse to deal with the question at all on the specious plea that the question was not raised before the Appellate Commissioner - the Appellate Commissioner did not record any finding to the effect that the appellant did not file any explanation - the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, the ITO has not only added the income from house and levied tax upon it, but also proceeded to levy the interest under Section 234-A, B & C of the Act, which is indeed phenomenal compared to the entire assessment – thus, the matter is remitted back to the ITO for fresh consideration – Decided in favour of assessee. - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, refused to accept the contention that it was raised for the first time before it. On merits also, it opined that the explanation cannot be accepted. Hence, this appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department. The entire proceedings are referable to an exercise initiated by the Income Tax Officer under Section 154 of the Act. The ITO processed the returns submitted by the appellant and passed an order of assessment, on 30.12.1994. Thereafter, he issued a show cause notice under Section 154 of the Act, on 26.02.1996, stating that an arithmetical error had crept into the order of assessment, and in that, Income from House Property, being ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh facts. The question whether the so-called reply dated 02.04.1996 was actually filed before the assessing officer is a matter, which according to us, entails a fresh enquiry. It requires verification of the registers of the Department and verification of signature of the concerned clerk who acknowledged it. So, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to take this ground for the first time before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, we find that the explanation requires consideration of the case on merits, which cannot be urged in a proceeding under S.154. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee should have agitated such matter in an appeal against the original assessment order, dated 30.12.1994, which laws not done. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation. The very fact that the Commissioner has dealt with the matter on merits, discloses that the contention advanced by the appellant was taken into account. The second major fallacy committed by the Tribunal was that, even while refusing to look into the explanation submitted by the appellant, it has pronounced on merits and observed that the plea taken in the explanation cannot be urged in the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. When a specific show cause notice was issued under Section 154 of the Act, it is just un-understandable as to how a plea raised in the explanation cannot be accepted. We would not have made so much of endeavour, but for the fact that in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, the ITO has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
