Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: Dealing with the issue of enhancement by CIT(A) which was never therein the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The ITAT was pleased to hold that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making the enhancement on an issue which was never there in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
The Assessee is a resident of Meerut and has been filing his return from the same address before the ITO, Ghaziabad. On the basis of an AIR information ITO, Ghaziabad initiated reassessment proceedings. The information suggested that Assessee has purchased property. All the notices and intimations were issued to the address which was mentioned in the transfer deed of the property. Since all the notices were served at this address, where the Assessee was not residing he could not respond to the notices and the assessment was framed ex parte u/s 144/147 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO as no such property was purchased by the Assessee. However, the CIT (A) was of the opinion that the Assessee has in fact sold some property in the year under consideration and, accordingly, issued a notice of enhancement.
Being Aggrieved by the enhancement the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the ITAT on a limited issue that CIT(A) had no power to enhance the assessment on an altogether different issue which was never there in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
The ITAT was pleased to hold that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making the enhancement on an issue which was never there in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
“However, the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in making the enhancement on an issue which was never there in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
We are of the considered view that the enhancement done by the CIT(A) is bad in law and the reassessment notice issued by the AO, Ghaziabad is also bad in law. We, accordingly, set aside the assessment and quash the same. Since the foundation has been removed the order of the first appellate authority becomes non est”
Hence, the appeal was allowed. [Harendra Singh v. ITO, I.T.A No.1318/Del/2018, decided on 27-11-2020]
Akshat Malpani, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court
