Appeals allowed due to jurisdictional errors in orders by CIT(A)-1 post-retirement. Remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal identified jurisdictional errors in the orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after his compulsory retirement, leading to the nullification of the decisions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were remanded to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are jurisdictional errors in deciding the appeal, deletion of additions without considering facts, and overlooking the status of the company's shares as penny stocks.

Jurisdictional Error in Deciding the Appeal:
The appeals were preferred against orders of the CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16. The revenue contended that the CIT(A)-1, Noida erred in deciding the appeal without jurisdiction, as the appeal should have been filed with the jurisdictional CIT(A), Ghaziabad. Furthermore, it was argued that the orders were received after the compulsory retirement of the concerned CIT(A), making them illegal and in violation of CBDT's notification. The Tribunal, in a similar case, found that the CIT(A)-1, Noida had no jurisdiction over appeals from Ghaziabad and set aside the orders for fresh consideration by the respective jurisdictional CIT(A).

Deletion of Additions Without Considering Facts:
The revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A)-1, Noida, including unexplained credit and addition under section 69C of the I.T. Act. They argued that the facts were not adequately considered, citing judgments from the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the merits of the additions but focused on the jurisdictional defects in the orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after his compulsory retirement, rendering them null and void.

Overlooking Status of Company's Shares as Penny Stocks:
The revenue also contended that the CIT(A)-1, Noida overlooked the fact that the company's shares were listed as penny stocks in reports from the Investigation Wing of the department. They referenced judgments from the Madras High Court and ITAT Delhi regarding similar issues. The Tribunal, echoing the findings in the jurisdictional error issue, set aside the orders for reconsideration by the appropriate CIT(A) to ensure a fair hearing for the parties involved.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal found jurisdictional defects in the orders passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after his compulsory retirement, leading to the nullification of the decisions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were remanded to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

---