TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing Grounds of appeal : "1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there were no exceptional circumstances and hence appeal filed before the CIT (A) cannot be revived and by said action, the appeal has wrongly been dismissed without considering on merits of each ground, though, Hon'ble Tribunal has held that on abatement of Settlement Petition, matter is revert with CIT(A) to decide the case. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal though Settlement Commission has abated the petition, which itself is an exceptional circumstance and which warranted revival of the appeal. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that there were no exceptional circumstances, where as in exceptional circumstances of the case only, the Settlement Commission has been abated the case. The circumstance under which case was abated by the Settlement Commission, is an exceptional circumstance and the proceedings pending before the Income Tax Authorities gets revived. The CIT(A) ought to have considered these facts and the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of rent. The appellant was not the owner of the property the said Sarvoday Nagar. vi) The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 58,65,000/- on account of pagdi from Sarvoday Nagar Chawl even though no amount has been received. In fact the said chawl was not belonged to the appellant till Sept/ November, 1987. vii) Without prejudice to above, the chawl was constructed by the original owner in 1981; hence the same can not be added during the year. viii) The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,71,250/ - on account of transfer charges of Sarvoday Nagar chawl even though Chawl was not belonged to the appellant. The appellant was not shown such register. ix) The assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 47,25,000/ - on account of estimated cost of construction of Sarvoday Nagar Chawl even though no construction has been carried out by the appellant. The chawl was not belonged to the appellant. Without prejudice to above the chawl was constructed in 1981. x) The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of Jai Ambe Tea Mart even though no such rental income and pagdi receipt nor given nor any cost has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the preliminary plea of assessee, the following fact-situation is relevant. The appellant before us is an individual engaged in the business of development and construction of small rooms/shops besides earning rental income from rooms/shops in Mumbai. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the office and residential premises of the assessee on 11.10.1994. As a consequence of the search, an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147/148 of the Act dated 22.3.1999 was finalised for Assessment Year 1986-87 whereby the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,41,43,020/-. Against such an assessment, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 9.4.1999. Meanwhile, during the pendency of appeal before the CIT(A), assessee made an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 10.8.1999, which was admitted by the ITSC on 1.11.1999. In view of the proceedings before the ITSC, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee as infructuous vide his order dated 3.10.2002. This order of the CIT(A) has since been affirmed by the Tribunal also vide ITA No. 605/Mum/2009 & Ors. dated 13.4.2010 whereby the appeal was dismissed for being belated as well as by approving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which event the assessee has to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In other words, appeals cannot be filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and, instead, the assessee has to approach the CIT(A) for appropriate remedy." 7. According to the ld. CIT-DR, the CIT(A) has rightly noted that no exceptional circumstance has been made out by the assessee to justify revival of appeal and that the said approach of the CIT(A) was consistent with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case, in terms of the fact-situation noted by the CIT(A), application of the assessee before the ITSC abated on account of non-compliance with the requirement of Sec. 245D(2D) of the Act which envisages payment of additional tax on the income disclosed in the application and interest thereon before the application can be proceeded with. Be that as it may, for the present purpose, it is not relevant as to why the application of the assessee before the ITSC abated; what is of relevance is the effect of abatement of proceedings before the ITSC which, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, is governed by sub-section (2) ....