9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in the aforesaid appeal on the ground that the said order suffers from mistake apparent on record which requires to be rectified. 2. In a group of about 83 appeals, of which the appeal of the assessee was also one of the appeals, the Revenue has requested by way of an additional ground that the orders impugned in those appeals should be held to be orders passed without proper jurisdiction and should be set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for decision afresh by the CIT(A) with competent jurisdiction. It has been stated in the application for raising additional grounds that the various assessees filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, against the order of assessment. The CIT(A)-11, Bangalore passed orders in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the then Ld CIT(A)-11. The Tribunal therefore set aside the orders of the CIT(A) to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The additional grounds of appeal were accordingly allowed. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the issues on merits raised by the appellants in their appeal do not require any consideration. All the appeals and cross objections were treated as allowed for statistical purpose. In the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed after the date on which the CIT(A) was divested of his powers to act as CIT(A) and therefore the order of the CIT(A) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no basis for the learned counsel for the assessee to presume that he was under the bonafide belief that the hearing was confined only to admission of additional grounds of appeal. It is therefore incorrect to say that there was no opportunity of being heard afforded to the assessee. 5. The next contention in the MP is that the DGIT(Investigation) who passed order dated 18.6.2018 asking the then CIT(A)-11 not to pass any further orders has no powers to do so. It has been contended that the CBDT Instruction No.20/2003 on which the Tribunal relied on in its order is applicable only to Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and not to DGIT(Investigation). Even Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax in pursuance of the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.20/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, obviously, is to ensure that the Appellate Commissioners pass quality orders, while achieving the quota fixed for them. The Ld Standing Council submitted that the Director General of Income tax, Investigation, Karnataka & Goa, has issued a direction dated 18/06/2018 to the then CIT(A)-11 not to pass any further appellate orders, as he received certain information about the orders passed by the then CIT(A)-11. Admittedly, the above said direction has been defied by the then CIT(A) and he has proceeded to pass orders. There should not be any dispute that the instructions issued by CBDT are binding on all the income tax officials. The Ld Standing Council submitted that non-compliance with directions given by DGIT in compliance with the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence the impugned orders, in our view, is not curable and sustainable in the eyes of law." 7. It can be seen from the aforesaid paragraph 7 to 9 of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that CBDT in Instruction No.20/2003 all Chief Commissioners of Income Tax shall conduct regular inspections of the CIT(Appeals) working under them and keep a watch on the quality and quantity of orders passed by them. The instructions further lay down that failure on the part of the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax to do so would be viewed adversely by the CBDT. The Tribunal held that the said directions which are binding on all revenue authorities is also a factor which compelled the DGIT(Investigation) to pass order dated 18.6.2018. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds seeking to raise the issue with regard to invalidity of the orders of the CIT(A). On this objection, we find that the Tribunal has already found sufficient grounds to admit the additional grounds and the assessee cannot seek to raise these issues in the form of MP. 10. It has also been submitted that the case laws cited is not applicable to the assessee's case. Even this submission is outside the purview of application under section 254(2) of the Act as it cannot be said that there is mistake apparent on the face of the record. In an MA under section 254(2) of the Act, the assessee cannot seek to reargue the appeal. The Tribunal does not have power to review its own orders. The scope of powers under section 254(2) of the Act is onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
