Government-owned appellant challenges CIT(A) order for 2003-04

The appellant, wholly owned by the Govt. of Uttrakhand, appealed against the Ld. CIT(A) order for the asstt. year 2003-04. The Tribunal found the grounds of appeal to be descriptive and argumentative, not complying with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules. The return was filed on an estimate basis due to delayed auditor appointment by the office of the CAG. Following the previous year's decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside all issues for reexamination by the AO with the appellant given the chance to provide evidence.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) for asstt. year 2003-04; Descriptive and argumentative grounds of appeal not in consonance to Rule 8 of ITAT Rules; Delay in appointment of auditor by the office of the CAG leading to filing return on estimate basis; Similar issue previously dealt with by Tribunal in asstt. year 2001-02 and 2002-03.

Summary:
The appellant, wholly owned by the Govt. of Uttrakhand, appealed against the Ld. CIT(A) order for the asstt. year 2003-04. The grounds of appeal were found to be descriptive and argumentative, not complying with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules. The appellant's return was filed on an estimate basis due to delay in the appointment of the auditor by the office of the CAG. The Tribunal had previously set aside similar issues for fresh adjudication in the asstt. years 2001-02 and 2002-03.

In the assessment year 2002-03, the appellant was engaged in multiple business activities, and additions were made by the AO under each activity. The Tribunal's finding in the previous year noted the challenges faced by the appellant in filing returns on an estimate basis due to delayed audit appointments. The Tribunal directed the AO to reexamine the issue upon receipt of audited accounts, allowing the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Based on the previous year's decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes in the current case as well. All issues were set aside to the file of the AO for readjudication, with the appellant given the opportunity to provide evidence in support of its explanation. The order was pronounced on 15.4.2010.

---