TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as it relates to the issue regarding the assessment being beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Act had attained finality, and thus, could not have been disturbed by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 771/2014, ITA 185/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - Dr. S. Muralidhar and Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates. ORDER Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against an order dated 12th June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) (hereafter referred to as Tribunal ) in ITA No.2393/Del/2014, being the Assessee s appeal against the decision of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter CIT(A) ] sustaining the addition of a sum of ₹ 20,25,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act, on merits. The Revenue has filed the present appeal ( ITA 771/2014) being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal insofar as it has upheld the CIT(A) s view that the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the search and, thus, was beyond the scope of assessment under Section 153A of the Act. 3.3 The CIT(A) disposed of the Appeal by an order dated 24th January 2014. The CIT(A) found merit in the Assessee s contention that the addition made was beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Act as the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. However, the CIT(A) upheld the conclusion of the AO that the share application money reflected in the books of the Assessee was unexplained. 3.4 The Revenue accepted the aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A) and did not prefer any appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee, on the other hand, impugned the order of CIT(A), inter alia, on the following ground :- That the learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by assessing officer under section 68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 20,25,00,000/- particularly having regard to the fact that very assumption of jurisdiction to bring to tax the aforesaid sum was beyond the scope of provisions of section 153A of the Act, as was held by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the impugned order. 3.5 Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng as regards ground No. 7 has attained its finality. In the circumstances, the High Court could not have interfered with the final order passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal. 7. We find considerable merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee. Concededly, the issue whether the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of Section 153A had been decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the Assessee and the decision on the said issue had attained finality as the Revenue had not preferred any appeal with regard to the CIT(A) s order. 8. It is also relevant to note that by virtue of Section 253(2) of the Act, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to an order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act, direct the AO to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. It is not disputed that no such directions to file an appeal against the CIT(A) s order dated 21st January, 2014 were issued by the concerned Income Tax Authority. 9. In the circumstances, there could be no dispute that the CIT(A) s order in so far as it relates to the issue regarding the assessment being beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Act had attained finality, and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e way as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is empowered to do while dealing with an appeal against the order of the assessing authority. As the appellate power is a power which is conferred by statute, both its existence as well as its extent has to be gathered from the relevant statutory provision. The fundamental idea is that an appellant seeks a relief from an appellate court, and not determinate to himself. Even under the general provisions of the law of procedure, the worst determinate which an appellate court may visit on an appellant is to dismiss the appeal with a direction in an appropriate case to pay costs to the opposite side. An order adverse to the interests of the appellant-adverse in the sense that it takes away from him a benefit which he has already acquired under the order appealed from-is possible only by means of an order made either upon a cross-appeal filed by the other side or on the basis of a memorandum of cross-objections presented by him wherever the law permits him to do so. 11. The aforesaid passages were referred to by a Division bench of this Court in CIT vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Court further reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
