TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Allows Appeals, Directs CIT(A) Review | Appeal Fees Confirmed Correct</h1> <h3>Dr. A. Naresh Babu. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> The Tribunal allowed all fifteen appeals filed by the assessees, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of the issues that have not attained ... Appeal Fee Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of appeals before the CIT(A).2. Payment of appeal fees.3. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to adjudicate on reassessment orders passed u/s 264.Summary:1. Maintainability of Appeals:The primary issue was whether the appeals filed by the assessees against the reassessment orders passed by the AO, following the directions of the CIT u/s 264, were maintainable. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the grounds of non-maintainability, arguing that reassessments made in consequence of the CIT's revisional orders cannot be subject to appellate jurisdiction for the same assessment years. The Tribunal, however, held that appeals are maintainable from fresh orders passed by the AO to give effect to a revisional order u/s 264, but only such issues can be agitated which have not attained finality by virtue of the revisional order or earlier orders.2. Payment of Appeal Fees:The Tribunal addressed the issue of short payment of appeal fees. The assessees paid Rs. 500 per appeal, arguing that since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-maintainability, the appeal fee should be Rs. 500 as per s. 253(6)(d). The Tribunal agreed, citing the Karnataka High Court decision in Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, and concluded that there was no short payment of appeal fees.3. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to Adjudicate on Reassessment Orders u/s 264:The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on reassessment orders passed by the AO following the CIT's directions u/s 264. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including ITO vs. Suseelaram Enterprises and Teja Singh vs. ITO, and concluded that appeals against such reassessment orders are maintainable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate only those issues which have not attained finality by the revisional order u/s 264 and to decide the same on merits.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed all fifteen appeals filed by the assessees, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of the issues that have not attained finality by the revisional order u/s 264. The Tribunal also confirmed that the appeal fees paid by the assessees were correct and there was no short payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
