TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has raised three grounds of appeal. Ground number 2 deals with merits of the case whereas in remaining two grounds jurisdictional issue has been raised. During the assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had received commission of Rs. 25.35 lakhs and interest of Rs. 3.81 lakhs from BASF Styrenics Private Ltd.(BASF) that it had not offered both the items in its return of income. He directed the assessee to file an explanation in that regard and he also issued notice u/s. 133 (6) to BASF. After considering the available material and the reply BASF AO made an addition of Rs. 26.16 lakhs(Rs.25 35 189/-)under the head commission income and (Rs.3 81 559/-) under the head unexplained income to the income of the assessee. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rectification order passed by the AO. He relied upon the cases of Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (52 ITR 335) Anil Suri (66SOT 180) the Lilasons Industries Ltd (ITA/308/Ind/2015-AY.2011- 12 dated 30/06/2016). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We are of the opinion that before deciding the issue on merits jurisdictional issue has to be decided. We find that while deciding the appeal the F AA has directed the AO to take action u/s. 147/148 of the Act and to assess the income of the assessee for the AY. 2008-09 and not for the year under consideration. Thus he has given a direction for an AY. For which no appeal was pending before him.We fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchand Shrimal 131 ITR 451 460 (SC). (iii) CIT vs Ahmedabad Crucible Co. 206 ITR 574 (Guj.) 13. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that it would not mean that ld. CIT(A) has unlimited powers. There are fetters on the powers of ld. CIT(A). Proceedings before ld. CIT(A) are confined the year which is pending before him. If appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 are pending before ld. CIT(A) any observation for any other AY. would be improper in deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. For this contention ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee relied on following judgments: - (a)CIT vs C. M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.) 785. (b)C. M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.). (c) Pt. Hazari Lal 39 ITR 265 (All.) (d)Laxmi Narai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om.) relying on Supreme Court in ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the AAC u/s. 31 of the 1922 Act was strictly confined to the assessment order of that particular year under appeal. The AAC no doubt was competent to hold whether a particular item or a particular amount was income of that AY. but he had no jurisdiction further to decide in that appeal the appropriate year in which the said income would fall. We also observe that in the case of Nathalal Dhanjibhai 59 ITR 615 (Guj) wherein it was held that a finding therefore could only be that which was necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of the assessment of a particular year. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the AAC ....