Appeals allowed due to jurisdictional issues; importance of addressing jurisdiction before adjudication

The appeals were filed against the common order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, with identical grounds and issues. The main issues included challenges against the impugned order, treatment as 'assesse in default,' and interest charged under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds on jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court judgment, leading to the case being restored for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need to address jurisdictional matters before further adjudication.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals against common order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh - Identical grounds and issues in both appeals - Lead case for disposal - Grounds raised against impugned order - Treatment of assessee as 'assesse in default' - Ignorance of depositors in furnishing PAN details - Violation of natural justice - TDS inspection revealing Form 15G/15H discrepancies - PR treated as 'person in default' - Interest charged under section 201(1A) - Additional grounds raised regarding jurisdiction - Tribunal's jurisdiction to examine new grounds - Reframed question on Tribunal's powers - Admittance of additional grounds - Case restoration for Ld. CIT(A) to pass speaking order - Appeals allowed for statistical purposes.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Assessee against the common order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh. As the grounds and issues in both appeals were identical, they were heard together, with ITA No. 854/Chd/2016 considered as the lead case for disposal. The effective grounds raised included challenges against the impugned order, treatment as 'assesse in default,' and the charging of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the order was against the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and cited judgments to support their case.

During a TDS inspection at the assessee bank's premises, discrepancies in Form 15G/15H were noted, leading to the Assessing Officer treating the PR as 'person in default' for not deducting tax at the prescribed rate. The appellant's explanation was not accepted, resulting in the charging of interest under section 201(1A). The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the PR as 'assessee in default' and to provide relief to certain depositors. The appellant filed additional grounds regarding jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court judgment on the Tribunal's powers to examine new grounds.

Respecting the Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal admitted the additional grounds related to jurisdiction, directing the case to be restored for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the new grounds. Once the jurisdiction issue was resolved, the case would proceed for adjudication on merits. Ultimately, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of addressing jurisdictional matters before further adjudication. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 31/08/2017.

---