9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 09.09.2008, on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable? 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal having held that the appeal was not maintainable, whether was right in not holding that the CIT(A) also did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal filed before him and therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was invalid and void? 3.Whether it is right in law that as per the Explanation to Section 140A of Income Tax Act, 1961, the payment made by the appellant pursuant to the demand raised vide intimation under Section 143(1)(a) had to be appropriated towards interest fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee at Rs. 6.07 Crores. This was challenged by the assessee before the CITA, who allowed the assessee's appeal in part. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal in its entirety. Thus, the computation of income at Rs. 6.07 Crores, by order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, was held to be wrong. While giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 10.07.2003. The dispute is with regard to the computation of interest under Section 234-B of the Act. The Assessing Officer applied the principle explained in Explanation to Section 140-A of the Act and adjusted the payment as against the interest first and then towards the tax. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 253 of the Act states that any assessee, aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Act, may appeal to the appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee's appeal is not maintainable since they did not object to the charging of interest. 8.In our considered view the Tribunal committed an error in making such an observation because what the assessee had objected to is not charging of interest, but the computation, resulting in enhancement. In such circumstances, whether the appeal would be maintainable would be the question. 9.The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [160 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh examination. As pointed out above, the decision in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., will aid the assessee's case and the Tribunal was not right in holding that the appeal was not maintainable, as the appeal was not against an order rejecting the request for waiver. In any event, appeal under Section 253(1)(a) of the Act is maintainable before the Tribunal, as the order impugned before the Tribunal is an order passed under Section 250 of the Act. 13.Thus, for the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
