9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any material on record, we are not able to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 stands dismissed. - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : The assessee has filed three appeals against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to Ld. CIT (A) ) all dated 28.10.2022 for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice was served on the assessee for the hearing. The matter was called several times but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. While going through the record, we observed that the appeal was filed by the assessee on 03.05.2023 and the assessee removed the defects vide letter dated 24.05.2023. Subsequently, six hearing notices were issued through RPAD but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the assessee deleted the protective and substantive addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee relating to the commission but rejected the additional ground relating to approval u/s 153D of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and relied on the order of the ld. CIT (A). 8. Considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and material placed on record. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee and assessee chose not to pursue its case, hence, after analyzing the appeals under consideration, we deem it fit and proper to dispose of these appeals after considering the relevant material on record. We observed that the assessee is in appeal before us on the issue of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act. We observed that ld. CIT (A) on the jurisdictional issue viz. approval granted u/s 153D has given the following findings :- 8. The appellant has taken an additional ground which says that approval u/s 153D of the Act being mechanical and, invalid approval having been granted without due application of mind to the facts of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is coterminous with that of the AO. He can do whatever the AO can do and can direct the AO to do what he failed to do. Refer: Kanvur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). In view of this, the Courts have taken a view that there is no reason to justify the curtailment of powers of the CIT(A) to entertain additional grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in seeking modification of the assessment order passed by the AO. Jute Corp. of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) National Thermal Power Co, Ltd. 229 ITR 383 (SC), Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB). Further, the AO in his remand report has also not raised any objection against the additional ground taken by the assessee. Thus, the additional ground taken is allowed to be considered. 8.2 The AO in his remand report has submitted that: The above submissions of the assessee company, are not acceptable as the contentions raised therein are not supported by any documentary evidence. In this respect, it is submitted that before passing original assessment order u/s 153A/153C of the Act, a draft assessment order is to be sent to Additional CIT for obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Act The seized material etc. along with app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be further clarified by the assessee. It clearly indicates that Range Head had applied his mind and due diligence before giving approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the block assessment of assessee company. Hence, the approval given by the Range Head with respect to the draft assessment order proposed by the AO cannot be termed as mechanical. Further, in view of the above as per the CBDT guidelines stated above, the due procedure was followed during block assessment proceedings by AO and Range Head and there was no mechanical procedure adopted. Further, the case-laws relied upon by the assessee company are also of no use. 8.3 The submission of the assessee and the report submitted by the AO is perused. It has been found that the AO has to be in constant touch with the Jt./ Addl. Commissioner for approval of issuance of questionnaires and to discuss the issues involved on a regular basis. It cannot be said that the AO has just sent the draft order to get the approval of it U/s 153D. The Joint Commissioner has complete knowledge of the facts of the cases since the matters are time barring and he/ she regularly interact with the Assessing Officers to get hold of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the aforesaid findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it is a normal practice in the department that the draft order is put up alongwith the assessment records and relied upon documents before the approving authority and the additional copy of the Appraisal report is already given to the Jt. /Addl. Commissioner. We further observed that Ld. CIT(A) noted from the records that it is nowhere evident which proves that these records were not provided to the approving authority. Hence, it has been rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that approving authority had approved the assessment order as per provisions u/s. 153D of the Act. In absence of any submission or material provided by the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the jurisdictional issue of approval u/s. 153D of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are rejected with regard to issue relating to merits of the case in absence of any material on record, we are not able to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2012-13 stands dismissed. 10. Since, the facts in other AYs i.e. 2015-16 2016-17 are exactly simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
