9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Nayak-DR For The Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta-AR PER RAJENDRA AM Challenging the order dtd.20.03.2014of CIT(A)-18 Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal. Asseess-company engaged in business of supplying plastic raw material filed its return of income at Rs. NIL. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 30/12/2011 determining its income at ₹ 18.42 lakhs. 2. T he assessee has raised three grounds of appeal. Ground number 2 deals with merits of the case whereas in remaining two grounds jurisdictional issue has been raised. During the assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had received commission of ₹ 25.35 lakhs and interest of ₹ 3.81 lakhs from BASF St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the AY.2008-09 by taking appropriate action u/s.147/148 of the Act. 3. D uring the course of hearing before us the Authorised Representative (AR) contended that the FAA had no jurisdiction to direct the AO to assess the income in question in other AY. that his order lacked jurisdiction that the assessee had not raised the issue of taxability of income in a particular year before him that in its grounds of appeal it has objected to the rectification order passed by the AO. He relied upon the cases of Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (52 ITR 335) Anil Suri (66SOT 180) the Lilasons Industries Ltd (ITA/308/Ind/2015-AY.2011- 12 dated 30/06/2016). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 4. We have heard the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of the ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) could conduct any enquiry as he thinks fit and do enhancement of assessment. The jurisdiction of ld. CIT(A) is not limited to the subject matter of appeal but to the subject matter of assessment. He can do what the ld. AO has failed to do. 12. For this contention the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- (i) CIT vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 229 (SC). (ii) Kapurchand Shrimal 131 ITR 451 460 (SC). (iii) CIT vs Ahmedabad Crucible Co. 206 ITR 574 (Guj.) 13. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that it would not mean that ld. CIT(A) has unlimited powers. There are fetters on the powers of ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum which was in question in the appeal before him was not income relevant to the AY. 1947-48 which was in appeal in that case. The question whether this income accrued or was earned in the previous year relevant to the AY. 1946-47 (i.e. the year not in appeal) was not before him for decision nor was it a point on which it was essential for him to record a finding before appropriately deciding appeal before him. We also observe in the case of Mathuradas B. Mohta 56 ITR 269 (Bom.) relying on Supreme Court in ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the AAC u/s. 31 of the 1922 Act was strictly confined to the assessment order of that particular year under appeal. The AAC no doubt was competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain sum introduced in the head office cash book in November 1955. On appeal the AAC deleted the addition of said sum on the ground that the said sum was outside the financial year 1956-57 relevant to the AY. in question. The Court further observed that in the instant case the AAC was dealing with the propriety of the assessment for AY. 1957-58. He found that the said sum did not relate to that year. That finding was sufficient to dispose of the item. He would not record a definite finding that this very item represented income of the assessee from an undisclosed source for AY. 1956-57. We find that in the instant case the AY. involved before the ld. CIT(A) was A.Y. 2011-12. The observations made for AY. S 2010-11 and 2009-10 would be out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
