Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Pvs Multiplex (India) Ltd., Meerut vs Acit, Meerut on 25 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'A' NEW DLEHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.3214/Del/2016
Assessment Year: 2008-09
M/s PVS Multiplex (India) Ltd., Vs Assttt. Commissioner of Income-tax ,
258, Garden House, Central Circle -2, Meerut.
Near Commissioner's residence,
Mall Road, Meerut.
(PAN: AACCP8168R)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2018
Date of Pronouncement: 25.04.2018
ORDER
PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM
Challenging the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut (for short hereinafter called as "the learned CIT(A)') in Appeal No.564/13-14 dated 28.03.2016, assessee preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that subsequent to the completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 29.12.2010 on a 2 total income of Rs.1,06,57,220/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,06,57,220/-,learned CIT, Meerut revised the order u/s 263 of the Act on 25.3.2013. Subsequently, order dated 18.3.2014 was passed by the learned AO making two additions, namely, Rs.7,41,755/- on account of the interest expense and Rs.4,62,485/- on account of the TDS on the payments towards business maintenance.
3. When the assessee preferred appeal against this order dated 18.3.2014 passed u/s 143(3)/263/154 of the Act, learned CIT(A) observed that when a co- equal authority had given a categorical direction to the AO who has acted in accordance with those directions then there is no scope of intervention by a co- equal judicial authority as the remedy would lie before a higher judicial forum i.e. the ld. ITAT. On this premise leaned CIT(A) refused to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 250 of the Act and had driven the assessee to this Tribunal in this appeal on the following grounds:
"That the ld, CIT(A) was not justified in not deciding the issues i.e. addition of Rs.7,41,755/- u/s 36(1)(iii) and addition of Rs.4,62,485/- u/s80IB(7A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on merits stating that the directions u/s 263 have been given by co-equal judicial authority which is illegal and not correct."
4. On a careful perusal of the material papers before us what we find is that the learned CIT(A) refused to exercise his jurisdiction on the ground that the order 3 impugned before him was passed by the learned AO pursuant to the directions given by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act and inasmuch as the CIT and CIT(A) are co- equal authorities, the remedy of the assessee is not before the CIT(A) but it is only before the ITAT. We are unable to understand the stand taken by the learned CIT(A) because what was challenged before him was the order passed by the learned AO when the matter was set aside for the consideration of certain aspects suggested by the CIT. If the order u/s 263 is challenged b3efore the learned CIT(A) then it was open for the learned CIT(A) to refuse to exercise jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority who passed the order u/s 263 of the Act and the authority who has to consider the appeal were equal in authority. However, the directions given by the CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act passed to consider the aspects in respect of which the income might have escaped assessment. If we accept the logic adopted by the learned CIT(A) in this matter, it would result in reading something which is not to be found in the Act because in that case all the assessment orders passed giving effect to the orders u/s 263 of the Act will be directly appealable to the ITAT but not before the CIT(A), which is not contemplated by the scheme of appeals in the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the refusal of exercise the appellate jurisdiction by the learned CIT(A) is improper and the 4 matter needs to be set aside to the file of CIT(A) for considering the appeal on merits and to give a finding thereon according to law. With this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remit it back to him for disposal according to law.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D. AGRAWAL) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 25th April, 2018
'VJ'
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
By order
Asstt. Registrar