2019 (4) TMI 754 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeal Allowed by ITAT: Additional Grounds of Appeal Admitted and Decided

AGRICO FINCAP LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS CITIZEN FOODS LTD.) Versus ITO, WARD 5 (3), NEW DELHI

The appeal by the Assessee challenging the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2 for assessment year 1997-98 was allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT. The Tribunal directed ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO non disposing objections before proceeding with the assessment by passing a speaking order - HELD THAT:- The re-assessment cannot be sustained. As observed herein above though the preliminary objection was raised against reopening of the assessment, the AO did not dispose of the same till the conclusion of re-assessment proceedings and passed order under section 147 of the Act and even on the directions of the Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) who had the coterminus powers with the AO has not adjudicated the same. AO is under a mandate to dispose of such objections before proceeding with the assessment by passing a speaking order and even the Ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus with the powers of AO, which have not been exercised by them, therefore, the reassessment under section 147 cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal2. Disposal of objections to notice u/s 1483. Validity of sanction for reopening by Commissioner of Income Tax4. Rejection of grounds of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)5. Disallowance of operational expenses6. Addition of unexplained creditsAdmission of Additional Grounds of Appeal:The appeal by the Assessee challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi for assessment year 1997-98. The Hon'ble ITAT directed the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to admit and decide on the additional grounds of appeal. The Assessee argued that the observations questioning the delay in raising additional grounds were unjustified. The Assessee contended that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the additional grounds. The Tribunal emphasized that the powers of the appellate authority should align with those of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disposing of preliminary objections. The Assessee's appeal was allowed based on these grounds.Disposal of objections to notice u/s 148:The Assessee challenged the non-disposal of objections to the notice u/s 148 as a procedural defect. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner's view on this matter contradicted the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's powers should be in line with the AO's powers in disposing of preliminary objections. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, quashing the reassessment order due to the failure to address the objections before proceeding with the assessment.Validity of sanction for reopening by Commissioner of Income Tax:The Assessee contested the validity of the sanction for reopening granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Joint Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's actions did not align with judgments from the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal did not sustain the reassessment under section 147 due to procedural lapses and lack of proper sanction.Rejection of grounds of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):The Assessee objected to the rejection of grounds related to operational expenses and unexplained credits by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's observations regarding the information furnished by the Assessee. However, since the reassessment order was quashed, the Tribunal did not delve into these grounds on merits.Disallowance of operational expenses and Addition of unexplained credits:The Assessee raised grounds related to the disallowance of operational expenses and addition of unexplained credits. The Tribunal did not analyze these grounds on merits due to quashing the reassessment order. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed based on the procedural defects and failure to address preliminary objections.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues raised in the legal judgment and the Tribunal's rulings on each issue, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case.