TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ITA No. 2992/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 11/Bang/2019 in 2992/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2993/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 12/Bang/2019 in 2993/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2998/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2999/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3000/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3001/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3003/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3004/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3007/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 147/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3007/Bang, ITA No. 3006/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2994/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2995/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2996/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 15/Bang/2019 in ITA No. 2996/Bang/2018), ITA No. 1441/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 103/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 1441/Bang/2018, ITA No. 1442/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 104/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 1442/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2997/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 16/Bang/2019 in ITA No. 2997/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2990/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 13/Bang/2019 in ITA No. 2990/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2991/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 14/Bang/2019, in ITA No. 2991/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2966/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2967/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2988/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2989/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2987/Bang/2018, ITA No. 2982/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3028/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 148/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3028/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3029/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 149/Bang/2018 in ITA No. 3029/Bang/2018, ITA No. 3032/Bang/2018, C.O. No. 152/Bang/2018 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals. It is the plea of the revenue that all the orders impugned in these appeals were passed after 18.6.2018 and are therefore orders passed without jurisdiction and on that ground are liable to be set aside. Without prejudice to the above contention, it is the further plea of the revenue that by notification dated 16.07.2018, issued u/s. 120 of the Act, by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka & Goa, the appeals pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11 were transferred to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Bengaluru. It is the case of the revenue that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11 disregarding the directions issued by the Principal CCIT, has passed orders that are impugned in all these appeals. It is the further case of the revenue that though the impugned orders are purported to have been passed on dates which are prior to 16.7.2018 they were in fact passed after those dates but were pre dated. In support of the claim of the revenue that the impugned orders were in fact passed after 16.7.2018 but were predated, the revenue relies on the circumstance that the date of despatch of the impugned orders has not been entered in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the lapses in adjudicating the appeals. Therefore the orders passed after 18.6.2018 are illegal and are orders passed without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. In any event the orders purported to have been passed before 16.07.2018 were in fact back dated. He reiterated the allegations as contained in the submissions made by the Revenue for raising additional grounds. The learned DR prayed that all the impugned orders be set aside and the issues raised in the various appeals be remanded to the CIT(A) having proper jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits afresh. 5. In support of the Revenue's contention, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the IT AT, Delhi Bench, in the case of ACIT Vs. Globus Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1185/Del/2020 for Assessment Year 2015-16 order dated 08.01.2021. In the aforesaid case, one Shri. S.K. Shrivastava, CIT(A)-1, Noida, was compulsorily retired from Government of India, w.e.f. 11.06.2019. He passed orders pertaining to appeals falling within the jurisdiction of Ghaziabad and only CIT(A), Kanpur had jurisdiction to try those appeals. There was also evidence with regard to findings of Vigilance department. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs were dated after 18.06.2018 but prior to 16.07.2018. The learned counsel for the Assessee in some of the appeals Mr. Nagin Khincha, CA argued that there is no specific application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and hence the additional grounds cannot be considered for admission. We have already observed that there is a submission along with the additional grounds and the same is and can be treated as application for admission of additional ground and the objection in this regard is hereby rejected. It was submitted that the allegation with regard to the orders being anti-dated are all allegations which are not supported by any evidence. 7. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. It is undisputed that the impugned orders in all the appeals were passed after 18.6.2018 order dt. 18.6.2018 by which Director-General of Income Tax (Investigation), Karnataka and Goa, Bengaluru, directed the then CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, not to pass any further appellate orders during pendency of the explanation sought on the lapses in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in appeal on or after the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding to pass orders results serious lapse on his part in administering justice. We also notice that all the orders impugned in these appeals have been passed between 5.7.2018 and 13.7.2018, numbering around 50 orders, involving different Assessees and different issues, which is difficult task for any appellate authority. Hence we agree with the submission of Ld. Standing Counsel that the interests of revenue is prejudiced by the said action of the then Ld. CIT(A)-11. All these factors, in our view, would vitiate the appellate orders passed by him after 18-06-2018, even if the allegation of pre-dating of orders is not accepted/proved. Hence the impugned orders, in our view, is not curable and sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. On almost identical facts, the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Globus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held after finding that the impugned orders were passed by the appellate authority after it was divested with powers to pass orders observed as follows: "10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. workman 1951 SCR 380 in the identical situation held that Jurisdictional defect strikes at the very authority of the Cou....