TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's miscellaneous application in MA No.150/PUN/2023. 4. Assessee filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in WP No.14804 of 2023. Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 held as under : Quote"1. After the petition was heard for some time, the Court felt that Petitioner had a prima-facie case. Hence, without going into the merits, the following order is passed by consent : a. The impugned order dated 25th October 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. b. The matte is remanded to the Tribunal to re-hear Miscellaneous application No.150/Pun/2023." Unquote. 4.1 As per the directions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, registry issued notice refixing the MA No.150/PUN/2023 for hearing. On 03.10.2025, the Miscellaneous Application No.150/PUN/2023 came up for hearing, during the hearing, ld.AR relied on the letter dated 19.12.2016 claimed to have been filed before ld.CIT(A). Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue requested for time to verify the fact whether letter dated 19.05.2016 was filed before ld.CIT(A) or not! Accordingly, the case was adjourned. 5. On 12.12.2025, the said Miscellaneous Application was he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain grounds could have been applied only if the Applicant had unconditionally withdrawn the grounds or unconditionally 'not pressed' the same. b. The 'not pressing' was not unconditional. It was conditional upon relief being allowed to the Applicant on the merits of the appeal. The same is clear from the letter dated 16th December 2016 filed by the Applicant before the CIT (A). A copy of the said letter dated 16th December 2016 was annexed at pg. no. 72 of the paperbook before this Hon'ble Tribunal. This Hon'ble Tribunal has overlooked this letter on the basis of which the fundamental case of the Applicant was asserted which is seen from the fact that no reference to this letter was ever made but only the finding of the CIT (A) in its order was noted. Nisha Synthetics Limited v. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 72 (SC) r/w Nisha Synthetics Limited v. ITAT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 215 (Bom.) In this case, the Tribunal was directed to rehear the appeal of the assessee on the basis of documents which were already on record before the Tribunal. Jayant D. Sanghavi v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2017] 88 taxmann.com 554 (Bom.) (Para 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pen appeal and rectify same if it is so satisfied. 17. The observation of this Hon'ble Tribunal in para 7 of the said Order that we can very well direct the Assessing Officer to assess the same in the concerned earlier assessment year" is contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manick Sons [1969] 74 ITR 1(SC) wherein it was held as follows: "An assessment which has become final may be reopened in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal or in revision by the Commissioner, or under an order of rectification of mistake, or pursuant to a notice of reassessment. The Tribunal hearing an appeal may give directions for reopening assessment of the year to which the appeal relates it cannot give any directions to reassess in case of a period not covered by that year reasons already set out the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed to combine the income for the two years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and to divide it for the purpose of assessment between the two years equally. The Tribunal had to assess the income for the year in question." For 18. This observation of this Hon'ble Tribunal which is contrary to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) was procured by filing a RTI Application and same was produced before the Tribunal. The AR argued that he had conditionally withdrawn grounds no 1, 2 and 3 filed before the CITIA) subject to relief being granted on balance grounds of appeal. The order sheet noting dated 19/12/2016 only notes that Shri Aditya Dastane (CA) appeared. Discussed the issues. The AR is not pressing ground no 1, 2, and 3. There is no mention of the conditional withdrawal as claimed by the AR. 9. During the last hearing, the Hon'ble members have asked the department to ascertain if the letter dated 19/12/2016 was filed before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Pune. In order to verify the same this office has called for appellate records from the O/o the CIT(A)-5, Pune. On perusal of the records (2 Vols), it is seen that the letter dated 19/12/2016 is on record bearing the stamp and inward no. of CIT(A)-5 Pune (copy of assessee's letter and copy of Order Sheet maintained by the O/o Ld. CIT(A)-5, Pune are enclosed for reference purposes)." Findings & Analysis : 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee during the appellate proceedings had challenged proceedings....