Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964

cumulative consideration the provisions U/s 250(6) read with Sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of Section 251(2) of I.T. Act , we come to the conclusion that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on points which arose for determination, such as on merits of disputed additions in this case, through a speaking order in writing. Once the Assessee files an appeal U/s 246A of I.T. Act, the Assessee sets in motion the machinery designed for disposal of the appeal under Sections 250 and 251 of I.T. Act. If the appeal filed by the assessee fulfils the requirements of maintainability and admissibility prescribed under Sections 246, 246A, 248 and 249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure in appeal prescribed U/s 250 of I.T. Act or powers of Commissioner (Appeals) prescribed U/s 251 of I.T Act. CIT(A), the first appellate authority, cannot dismiss assessee's appeal for non- prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits of the disputed addition through a speaking order in writing, stating the points of determination in the appeal, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. It is well-settled that powers of Ld. CIT(A) are co- terminus with powers of the Assessing Officer. Useful reference may be made to order of Apex Court decision in CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC) in which Page 8 of 13 ITA No.-2069/Del/2017.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 429 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs B. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr on 4 May, 1979

it was held that AAC has plenary powers in disposing off an appeal; that the scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the ITO, that he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, once the assessment proceedings are set in motion, it is not open to the AO to not complete the Assessment Proceedings by allowing the Assessee to withdraw Return of Income; it is similarly, by analogy, not open for Ld. CIT(A) to not pass a speaking order on merits of disputed addition by dismissing the appeal whether on account of non-prosecution of appeal by the Assessee or if the Assessee seeks to withdraw the appeal or if the assessee does not press the appeal. When the Commissioner (Appeals) dismisses the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee; in effect, indirectly it leads to same results as withdrawal of appeal by assessee. When the assessee is not permitted to withdraw the appeal filed before the first appellate authority, the first appellate authority is duty bound to not allow a situation to arise, through dismissal of appeal in limine for non-prosecution of appeal before the first appellate authority; in which, in effect, indirectly the same results are obtained as arise from withdrawal Page 9 of 13 ITA No.-2069/Del/2017.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2306 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next