TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances the statutory duty caste upon the First Appellate Authority cannot be abdicated as the said authority is mandatorily required to decide the appeal as directed by the Statute. The impugned order accordingly is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law. -Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2300/Del/2008 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2014 - Diva Singh and B C Meena, JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Himanshu Pandey, Sr DR ORDER:- PER : Diva Singh The present appeal has been remanded back to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgement and order dated 28.04.2010 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in dismissing the appeal on the basis of the judgement in the case of Multiplan India Ltd. of the Delhi ITAT where as the same has been held to be not good law in view of the Rajasthan High Court judgement in the case of Tribhavan Kumar and others reported in 213 CTR page 198. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified on the ground on non attendance on 27th March being the adjourned date on 20th march whereas on 20th itself it was informed and requested to the CIT(A) that it was not possible to attention 27th and some other date may be given since the person concerned was neither available on 20th and nor would be ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) ₹ 82,943/- under the head miscellaneous Expenditure as discussed above. 82,943/- 4) ₹ 1,10,510/- disallowed due to difference in commission paid during the year excessively, as discussed above. 1,10,510/- 5) ₹ 4,43,915/- disallowed due to personal element as discussed above in para 9. 4,43,915/- 56,37,368/- Taxable Income 63,68,910/- 3.1. As a result of which the assessment was concluded on a figure of ₹ 63,68,910/-. This addition of ₹ 56,37,368/- as per the impugned order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal. In these circumstances, the additions and disallowances made by the AO deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 4. Considering Ground Nos.-1,2 4 before us after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and referring to the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 we find that the impugned order does not meet the requirements set out by the statute. The procedure to be followed by the CIT(A) while disposing the appeals is set out in section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specific Sub-section (6) of the same casts the following responsibility and duty upon the Commissioner(Appeals) while deciding the appeals:- Procedure in appeal 250(1) . (6) The order of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) merely on the ground that the assessee had not been properly represented before the assessing authority as also before the appellate authority. The Tribunal took the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his return filed and, consequently, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to carry out the opportunity to substantiate its claim. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and the respondent agrees that the order passed by the Tribunal ought to be set aside and the Tribunal be directed to decide the appeal on merits. We also agree with the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
