TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, this MP is devoid of any merit and is liable to dismissed. - MP No.86/Bang/2021 (in ITA No.3005/Bang/2018) - - - Dated:- 28-9-2021 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-President And Shri B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Applicant : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel for Department ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: This is a Miscellaneous Petition (MP) filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ) praying for rectification/recalling of the order dated 22.2.2021 of the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid appeal on the ground that the said order suffers from mistake apparent on record which requires to be rectified. 2. In a group of about 83 appeals, of which the appeal of the assessee was also one of the appeals, the Revenue has requested by way of an additional ground that the orders impugned in those appeals should be held to be orders passed without proper jurisdiction and should be set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for decision afresh by the CIT(A) with competent juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the CIT(A) was divested of his powers to act as CIT(A) and therefore the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues raised in the various appeals by the different assessees before the CIT(A) were directed to be decided afresh by the jurisdictional CIT(A), after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 4. In this MP, it has been contended by the assessee that at the time of hearing held on 02.02.2021, the Counsel of the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the hearing was restricted to only admission of additional grounds and not on the merits of the additional grounds and therefore the assessee was not given opportunity of being heard by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the contention is devoid of any merit. All the 83 appeals were consolidated and posted for hearing. On 24.9.2019 the standing counsel for the department was asked to furnish the copy of additional grounds, copy of order dated 18.6.2018 and copy of order dated 16.7.2018. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and on 20.1.2020, the standing counsel was informed that the case would be adjourned to 10.2.2020 and no further time would be granted. On 10.2.2020, the concerned bench di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax to do so would be viewed adversely by the CBDT. 8. We notice that the instruction so issued by CBDT places responsibility upon the Chief Commissioners to ensure the quality of the orders passed by CIT(A). The purpose, obviously, is to ensure that the Appellate Commissioners pass quality orders, while achieving the quota fixed for them. The Ld Standing Council submitted that the Director General of Income tax, Investigation, Karnataka Goa, has issued a direction dated 18/06/2018 to the then CIT(A)-11 not to pass any further appellate orders, as he received certain information about the orders passed by the then CIT(A)-11. Admittedly, the above said direction has been defied by the then CIT(A) and he has proceeded to pass orders. There should not be any dispute that the instructions issued by CBDT are binding on all the income tax officials. The Ld Standing Council submitted that non-compliance with directions given by DGIT in compliance with the instruction issued by CBDT would cause prejudice to the revenue. Accordingly he submitted that the orders passed by the then Ld CIT(A)-11 after 18/06/2018 results in serious lapse on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the contention of the revenue that non-compliance with directions given by DGIT in compliance with the instruction issued by CBDT would cause prejudice to the revenue. The tribunal also took note of the fact that all the orders impugned in the group of appeals have been passed between 18.6.2018 and 13.7.2018, numbering around 50 orders (83 appeals), involving different Assessees and different issues, which is difficult task for any appellate authority. Hence the tribunal agreed 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 were cumulatively taken into account by the Tribunal in coming to a conclusion that the impugned orders were vitiated and the appellate orders passed after 18-06-2018 were invalid in the eyes of law. The above conclusions of the tribunal cannot be challenged in an application u/s.254(2) of the Act under the garb of pointing out a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 9. It has also been contended that the Department should have raised in these grounds in the memorandum of appeal and ought not to have filed an application for additional grounds se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
