Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Official Trustee Of W.B. For Trust Of ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 March, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1986]16ITD483(KOL)
ORDER
S.N. Rotho, Accountant Member
1. These two appeals filed by the same assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessee is an AOP deriving income from securities and dividends. The assessment years involved in these two appeals are 1980-81 and 1981-82.
3. The only common ground taken in these two appeals states that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeals filed before him by the assessee on the ground that the assessments made by the ITO should not have been made on a protective basis.
4. We have heard Shri A.K. Mitter, the learned representative for the assessee, who contended before us that the only grievance of the assessee against the assessment orders now under consideration is that the assess ments have been made as a protective measure in each year. To a query put by us, he stated that he did not have any Tribunal order or other authority in support of the ground taken by him in these two appeals. Shri S. Dasgupta, the learned representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that Section 246(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') does not give the assessee any right to appeal on the ground taken by it before the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. We have considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. It is now well settled that there is no inherent right of appeal and such a right has to be specifically conferred by the express terms of the statute. The assessment orders have been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and so Section 246(1)(c) is the relevant section to determine as to what points decided in the assessment order can be appeal ed against. Section 246(1 )(c) states that if an assessee is aggrieved as to his liability under the Act or the amount of income assessed or to the amount of tax determined or to the amount of loss computed or to the status under which he is assessed then, and then alone, he has been given a right to appeal against those points. In other words, there is no right of appeal conferred by law against any other point decided in the assess ment order or any other statement made therein. It has been admitted before us that the assessee had no grievance regarding the liability under the Act or computation of income, tax or loss or the status in which it is assessed. Hence, the assessee could not have any grievance merely because the ITO says that the assessments are made on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee on the incomes declared therein as a protec tive measure. The remark of the ITO merely means that the ITO reserved the right to proceed against somebody else if permitted under the law. Such a remark cannot give rise to any grievance on the part of the assessee who has been assessed exactly on the basis of the returns filed by it. Hence, we agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeals filed before him were misconceived and so they were liable to be dismissed. Hence, we uphold his common order dated 20-8-1984 for both the years under consideration.
6. In the result, the two appeals are dismissed.