9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ierarchy of authorities created under the Act to redress the grievances of the assessee. The question as formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent it rejects ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the same are restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal. It may be pointed out that the CIT (Appeals) after having rejected the Appellant's additional grounds proceeds further to deal with the ground nos.1, 2 and 3 and rejects the same on merits. This is an additional reason that the Tribunal ought to have considered grounds 1,2 and 3 raised by the Appellant on merits which it failed to do. On the aforesaid issue alone the appeal is restored to the Tribunal. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound Nos 1,2 and 3 herein above raised. 4. In the above view of the matter, we had passed an order dated 23.2.2015 putting the respondents to notice that on the next occasion Appeal would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 5. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's grounds 1,2 and 3 records as under : 3. It is seen that ground nos.1,2 and 3 in the GOA filed before us are the same additional grounds rejected to be adjudicated by the CIT (A). Section 253 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reads, Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strongly objected by Mr.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the revenue on the ground that the grounds of appeal nos. 1,2 and 3 as made out before the Tribunal were verbatim repetition as grounds of appeal which were raised by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) we find that this was not the basis of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal in respect of grounds 1,2 and 3. The submission on the part of the revenue is hypertechnical and not appreciated as it defeats the purpose and object of the hierarchy of authorities created under the Act to redress the grievances of the assessee. 8. Thus, the question as formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent it rejects g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
