2014 (12) TMI 439 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Finality in Appealable Orders Emphasized

Rajesh Agarwal HUF Versus The Commissioner, Income Tax, Ghaziabad and another

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's interim order under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the requirement for ... Maintainability of appeal against the interim order of the Tribunal u/s 260A – Interpretation of Term ‘every order’ provided u/s 260A - Held that:- The Court pointed out to the assessee that the appeal against an interim order is not maintainable u/s 260-A - the word “every order” appearing u/s 260-A(1) does not mean an interim order or an order passed on a Miscellaneous Application - It means a final order disposing of the appeal of the Act – also, in Chem Amit vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2004 (11) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court] it has been held that the legislature has not provided an appeal to the High Court from every order passed u/s 254, but has confined it to the order passed in an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal - the words “an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal” has to be given purposeful meaning - The words “passed in appeal” means an order finally deciding an appeal – thus, the present appeal against an interim order of the Tribunal is not maintainable u/s 260-A of the Act - it would be open to the assessee to question the interim order of the Tribunal in an appeal after final orders are passed by the Tribunal – Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Addition of income under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act.2. Rejection of request for additional evidence under Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules.3. Appeal against an interim order under Section 260-A of the Act.Analysis:1. The appellant, an HUF engaged in selling assets of an old factory, filed a return for the assessment year 2005-06 showing an income of Rs. 2,51,496. The assessing officer invoked Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and added Rs. 76,28,000 to the income, assessing it at Rs. 81,83,810. The appellant appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the addition. The Commissioner rejected the request for additional evidence under Rule 46-A, stating lack of justifiable reasons for not submitting it earlier. The appeal was dismissed, and the addition was confirmed. The appellant then approached the Tribunal, raising various grounds, including the rejection of additional evidence. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, refused to admit additional evidence, leading to the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Act.2. The Tribunal's decision to reject the appellant's request for additional evidence under Rule 46-A was a crucial issue. The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in deeming the evidence as an afterthought or fabricated without examining it and without justifying the need for additional evidence. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, prompting the present appeal. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments to determine the maintainability of the appeal against the Tribunal's order on additional evidence.3. The High Court clarified the scope of appeal under Section 260-A of the Act concerning orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. It emphasized that the appeal lies from final orders disposing of the appeal, not from interim orders or those on miscellaneous applications. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that the term 'passed in appeal' refers to orders conclusively deciding appeals. Therefore, an appeal against an interim order or a decision on a single ground is not maintainable under Section 260-A. The Court dismissed the present appeal against the Tribunal's interim order but allowed the appellant to challenge it in a subsequent appeal after final orders are issued by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's interim order, emphasizing the need for finality in orders for appeal under Section 260-A. The Court provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents to clarify the scope of appeal concerning orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, ensuring adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.