TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without appreciating that the said assessment order resulted in determination of total income and tax liability and thus gave rise to a valid and subsisting cause of grievance to the Appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by stating that no addition/disallowance has been made, whereas the total income has been assessed at Rs. 12,80,92,944 as against the returned income of Rs. 2,29,05,790 thereby confirming additions/adjustments amounting to Rs. 10,51,87,154 and the impugned order has thus been passed without any basis and without proper application of mind 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in failing to appreciate that an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is independently appealable under section 246A of the Act and cannot be rendered non-maintainable merely because the variations to income had their origin at the stage of processing under section 143(1) of the Act. 4. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and void ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, inasmuch as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate any of the grounds rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2018. The assessee was issued a communication u/s 143(1)(a) dated 16.02.2019 by the Centra Processing Centre, Bangalore, (in short 'CPC') proposing certain additions. Order under section 143(1) was passed by CPC, dated 16.10.2019 making certain additions and determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 12,80,92,944/-.The assessee apparently moved rectification applications u/s 154 which were not favourably answered by the revenue authorities. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly order dated 15.04.2021 was passed by the ld. AO accepting the income determined u/s 143(1) of Rs. 12,80,92,944/-. The assessee went in appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed while observing as under:- ".....4.1 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission of the assessee and material available on record. It is found that the assessee has contested grounds of appeal at serial No. 1 to 13 and contested additions made by the assessing officer. However, after the perusal of the assessment order it was found that the assessing officer has not made any addition as mentioned by the assessing officer vide the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal 10,23,97,133 The above profit of Rs. 10,23,97,133 was duly considered and reflected at Note No. 15, "Other Income" of the Audited Financial Statements for the year ending 31.03.2018 attached herewith as A- 73 to A- 122, forming part of the paperbook. Further, the Appellant also earned an income of Rs. 44,57,941 under the head Income from House Property. 1. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the cumulative total income from Capital Gains and Income from House Property was Rs. 10,68,48, 163, bifurcation of which is as follows: * Income under head House Property = Rs. 44,57,941 * Income under head Capital Gain = Rs. 10,23,76,758 2. However, while filing the ITR, the Appellant upon computing the income from business and profession under Schedule BP, unintentionally and inadvertently reduced the total amount of Rs. 10,68,48,163 from Schedule BP and transferred the same to Schedule HP. As humbly submitted above, the actual income under the head House Property is Rs. 44,57,941. Further, it is pertinent to note that the despite the incorrect and inadvertent aforesaid disclosure by the Appellant, the respective income/re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble taxation. 7. Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, ld. Sr. DR, pleaded that he would like to place reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The solitary controversy raised in the present case is as to whether the appropriateness of the conclusion drawn by the ld. First Appellate Authority of dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the premise that as there was no cause for any grievance in the order under section 143(3) dated 15.04.2021, the assessee was not entitled for any relief qua disturbance made to its total income u/s 143(1). Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce the statutory prescription contained in section 246 of the Act concerning filing of appeals before the First Appellate authority vis CIT(A)s or the JCIT(A) 246. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner) may appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against- (a) an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143, where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under subsectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant, in the course of appellate proceedings to the extent technologically feasible and direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to jurisdiction and procedure for disposal of appeals by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification. (6) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Board may specify that the provisions of that sub-section shall not apply to any case or any class of cases. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "status" means the category under which the assessee is assessed as "individual", "Hindu undivided family" and so on. 9. Perusal of the above shows that it gives right to a tax payer, if aggrieved by an action of the taxman qua orders passed under sub-clause (a) to (h) of section 246(1). Thus, the right to file an appeal has two essential critical components. Firstly, a tax payer should have been aggrieved by an order passed by an Assessing Officer and secondly, such order should have been passed in any of the sub-clause (a) to (h) of section 246(1). It is pertinent to note that in sub-clause (a) of section 246(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....controversy is whether the law permits the assessee to do so now. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that by way of Doctrine of merger the order dated 22.03.2016 had merged with the order dated 12.03.2022 and hence it is entitled to contest the addition under bad debts made in the impugned order dated 22.03.2016. The Ld. DR on the other hand argued that the assessee had taken a conscious call of not contesting the addition made in order dated 22.03.2016 within the statutorily available time limits and therefore cannot agitate the same later. It was further submitted that there is no addition made in the order u/s 147 dated 12.03.2022 by the Ld. AO and hence the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine as non-maintainable. We find sufficient force in the arguments of the Ld. DR. 5.1 The controversy embedded in the present appeal of the appellant assessee has been examined w.r.t. the statutory provisions of the act as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. In principle the assessee has contested the order u/s 251 of the act passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the appellant assessee had assailed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional insufficiency of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147. As far as merits of the case are concerned, there cannot be any case of grievance to the assessee because the Ld. AO did not make any additions. In fact in all fairness it is noted that the Ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 to examine an aspect of the percentage of rural branches which the assessee bank was having qua its claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii), however upon noting absence of any deficiency, the Ld. AO proceeded not to make any further disturbance. It is pertinent to point out that 147 action is always taken to add to or improve upon the quantum of income assessed in the original order, be it u/s 143(1) or u/s 143(3). It is thus seen that there was no case for the assessee getting aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, which would have warranted filing of an appeal u/s 246 before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The views of the Ld. First Appellate Authority extracted in para 4.0 herein above, have therefore been found to be totally in order. The decision of the Ld.CIT(A) that as the assessee has not contested the order dated 22.03.2016 in which the addition of Rs. 9,66,65,844/- was made by the....