2012 (7) TMI 253 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal grants condonation for delay, allows additional grounds challenging jurisdiction, directs fair review.

Uppal Nature Farms & Retreats P. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Meerut

The Appellate Tribunal granted condonation for a 55-day delay in filing appeals by the assessee against CIT(A) orders. It allowed the assessee to raise ... Appeal against denial to admit additional evidence on ground of delay even though ground was pure legal - assessee also contending assessment to be illegal and void ab initio on ground that assessment has been made in the individual name of the appellant even though the panchnama and search warrant was in the joint names - Held that:- Fact that the panchanama has been drawn up in joint names, leads to a probable inference that the warrant in question was issued in joint names. This fact has to be verified. First Appellate authority should have admitted this additional ground, which goes into the root of the matter and adjudicated the same. It cannot be rejected on the ground of delay, as it was taken before disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) and when it is a purely legal ground and facts are on record. CIT(A) directed to admit additional ground and adjudicate the same on merits Issues:Delay in filing appeals, Entitlement to raise additional grounds of appeal, Jurisdictional issues in assessment, Adjudication of additional grounds on merits.Delay in filing appeals:The Appellate Tribunal considered appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the CIT(A), Meerut, noting a delay of 55 days. The assessee submitted a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and medical records. After reviewing the contentions and records, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay and granted condonation.Entitlement to raise additional grounds of appeal:The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the assessment as illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, citing a judgment of the High Court. The CIT(A) declined to allow the additional ground, stating it was taken too late and the omission was willful. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments, held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional ground as it was a jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter, supported by relevant facts and legal principles.Jurisdictional issues in assessment:In one set of appeals, the assessee contested the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in reopening assessments under section 147. The CIT(A) refused to admit this ground, citing lateness in its submission. The Tribunal, consistent with its decision on the previous issue, directed the A.O. to reexamine the jurisdictional matter and instructed the CIT(A) to consider and decide on the additional ground on its merits.Adjudication of additional grounds on merits:The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit and evaluate the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning jurisdictional issues and the legality of the assessments. The Tribunal set aside certain appeals for fresh adjudication on these grounds, emphasizing that the additional grounds should not be rejected solely due to delay in submission. The Tribunal allowed all appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, remanding certain issues back for reconsideration based on the directions provided.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the delay in filing appeals, the entitlement to raise additional grounds of appeal, jurisdictional issues in assessments, and the importance of adjudicating additional grounds on their merits, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the legal aspects involved in the cases.