9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act. Section 253 (5) of the Income Tax Act mandates that an appeal should be admitted before ever an order is passed on merits. Once the appeal itself is not entertained, the question of going into the merits of the matter does not arise. We, therefore, find that the order of the Tribunal deciding the appeals of the assessee on merits, after dismissing the appeal itself on the question of delay, is an error apparent on the face of the record and that the order passed is without jurisdiction since, when there is no appeal, there is no question of deciding the issue raised in the appeal on merits. See Williamson Financial Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor. The appellant received professional charges for various technical services rendered by it for the assessment years 1995-1996 to 2000-2001, in all six assessment years. The assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) r/w 147 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and the claim of expenditure at 98% of the service charges was rejected and expenditure to the extent of 20% was allowed. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who estimated the assessee's net profit at 25% of the service charges received. On further appeal to the Tribunal in ITA Nos.2164 and 2165/Mds/2003, 393 to 396/Mds/2003, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is justified? ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim deduction under Section 40(b) as claimed? 7. The Tribunal took up all the matters together and after setting out the details of the claim and the reasons as submitted by the assessee for condonation of delay, rejected the same holding that the explanation submitted by the assessee is not satisfactory and there are no sufficient particulars. The Tribunal while holding that there is no ground for condonation of delay, further proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merits and dismissed the same. Having dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the question of condonation of delay, the further order of the Tribunal dismissing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing the appeal itself on the question of delay, is an error apparent on the face of the record and that the order passed is without jurisdiction since, when there is no appeal, there is no question of deciding the issue raised in the appeal on merits. 11. The above view of ours is fortified by the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Williamson Financial Services Ltd. - Vs - Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. (2003 (262) ITR 595). 12. In view of the reasons above mentioned, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matters back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Accordingly, the matters are allowed by way of remand to the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. It is need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
