2009 (3) TMI 218 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rejects appeals due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizes revival process for further action

The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93, as not maintainable due to lack of ... Appeal (Tribunal) Issues involved: Jurisdiction of CIT(A) when matter is before Settlement Commission, Delay in filing appeals before Tribunal, Abatement of proceedings before Settlement Commission.The judgment deals with three appeals filed by the assessee concerning the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93, in response to orders passed by the CIT(A)-II, Kochi. The assessments were completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation at the assessee's residential premises. The assessee also approached the Settlement Commission for early settlement of tax disputes, which got abated due to non-payment of additional tax on the admitted income. The CIT(A) dismissed the first appeals as infructuous, citing lack of jurisdiction when the matter was before the Settlement Commission.Regarding the delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, the assessee explained a delay of 7 years and 202 days, attributing it to the involvement of the Settlement Commission during the first appeals stage. Despite recognizing the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal found the appeals not maintainable, unable to examine the condonation petition due to lack of jurisdiction.The judgment emphasizes that once the issues are before the Settlement Commission, the CIT(A) loses jurisdiction to decide on the appeals, rendering them infructuous. The CIT(A)'s dismissal order was deemed technical, closing the proceedings for statistical purposes, with no appealable orders available for the Tribunal. The applications before the Settlement Commission were considered invalid due to abatement for non-payment of additional tax, requiring the assessee to move a restoration petition before the CIT(A) to proceed further.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals as not maintainable, stating that the CIT(A) must revive the appeals or the assessee should file a petition for restoration before the CIT(A) to proceed in accordance with the law. The Tribunal clarified that its jurisdiction arises only after the CIT(A) passes orders post-restoration or revival of the appeals.