2017 (10) TMI 173 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Overturns CIT(A) Decision, Orders Fresh Inquiry for Fair Resolution

M/s. Roop Chand Laxmi Narain HUF Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-28 (4), New Delhi And Vice-Versa

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the case for a fresh decision after a comprehensive inquiry to address the long-standing issue since ... Attached rental accrued to the assessee and compensation awarded adjusted against the demand raised by the Revenue - Held that:- From the letter dated 20.01.1988, written by Special Land Acquisition Collector, it is apparently clear that the cheques for ₹ 3,89,930/- and ₹ 3,90,213/- on account of compensation to be paid to the assessee were handed over to the Tehsildar, Delhi on 24.07.1986. When the compensation amount reached in the hands of the Tehsildar, Dehradun, where it was already attached by the Revenue against the demand of ₹ 20,59,964/- as is evident from para 4(c) of the assessment order then the revenue department is under legal obligation to pass speaking order that such & such amount belonging to the assessee has been adjusted against such & such demand raised by the Department. Again it was for the Revenue to verify and intimate the assessee that the amount of rental and compensation had been adjusted against the said demand. CIT(A) is required not only to dispose of the appeal but to conduct a discreet inquiry by summoning concerned officer and requisite record from the quarter concerned or to reconstruct the record, if need be, in compliance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in order to adjudicate the controversy at hand once for all. Because right from 1986, the assessee is moving like a rolling stone by approaching one forum after another right from Assessing Officer, CIT(A), Chairman, CBDT, Hon’ble High Court and then Tribunal having its no fault. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and file is remitted back to the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee has also assured to extend necessary assistance to arrive at the logical conclusion. Issues:Refund of compensation and rent, Disputed demand of Rs. 20,59,964, Failure to provide evidence of tax payment, Orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A), High Court directions, Need for further inquiry by CIT(A).Analysis:1. The appellants sought refund of compensation and rent from the Land Acquisition Department and Tenant, challenging the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) decisions for not granting the refund due to lack of evidence and technical issues.2. The Assessing Officer concluded that the record for the assessee was unavailable, no evidence of tax payment was provided, and there was a technical problem in issuing the refund without a specific assessment year.3. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, directing examination of the disputed demand of Rs. 20,59,964, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal reviewed the orders and found that the rental and compensation were attached against the demand, but discrepancies existed regarding the adjustment of these amounts.5. The High Court directed the CIT(A) to treat the writ petitions as refund applications, reconstruct records if necessary, and conduct a thorough inquiry to resolve the matter.6. The CIT(A) exceeded the issue's scope by considering irrelevant details, while the primary concern was the validity of attaching rental and compensation against the demand.7. It was emphasized that a discreet inquiry was needed to determine if the attached amounts were adjusted against the demand, as the Revenue Department failed to clarify this crucial aspect.8. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order, remitting the case for a fresh decision after a comprehensive inquiry to address the long-standing issue since 1986, ensuring a fair resolution for the assessee.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects and procedural steps taken in the case, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation to resolve the refund dispute effectively.