Scooters India Limited, Lucknow vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.131/LKW/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a direction issued by the first appellate authority under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law, having regard to the amendment to section 251(1)(a) by the Finance Act, 2001 (w.e.f. 1.6.2001) which withdrew the power to set aside an assessment, any assessment order passed consequent thereto is likewise illegal and unsustainable in law. An appeal against an assessment order passed consequent upon an illegal direction of the first appellate authority is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; the appeal was therefore rightly held infructuous and dismissed without adjudication of the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on various grounds, which are as under:-
1. Because the learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the issues and grounds of appeal as raised before him on merit but went on to dismiss the appeal as infructuous.
2. Because the appellant rightfully and legally filed the appeal against the order u/s 251/143(3) dated 14/03/2013 but the appeal has been dismissed as infructuous for no fault of the appellant but due to misconceived directions issued by the CIT (Appeals) in order dated 31.08.2010 to the assessing officer.
3. Because the CIT (Appeals) against facts and law has not given any finding in a logical manner on addition of Rs. 34 Lakhs on account of scrap value of 17 no. of dismantled vehicle and not passing a speaking order thereon.
:-2-:
4. Because the CIT (Appeals) against facts and law failed to appreciate and give any finding in treating the Royalty Receivable of Rs. 2315205/- and Interest Accrued on tem deposits amounting to Rs.19099225/- aggregating to Rs.21414430/- which were shown under the schedule of Current Asset as income of the appellant.
2. On perusal of record, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by six days and the assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Being convinced with the explanations given in the application, we condone the delay and admit appeal for hearing.
3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, our attention was invited to the fact that the present appeal is emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 251/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act") pursuant to the directions of the ld. CIT(A).
4. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has noted that this appeal is filed against an order of the Assessing Officer passed pursuant to the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has noted that the ld. CIT(A) cannot set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer as per provisions of section 251(1) of the Act. He is only empowered to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Before amendment in section 251(1)(a) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.6.2001, the ld. CIT(A) was also empowered to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the directions of the ld. CIT(A) was not in accordance with the law and the order passed by the Assessing Officer consequent to the directions of the ld. CIT(A) is also illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ld. :-3-:
CIT(A) accordingly held this appeal to be infructuous and dismissed the same.
5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) raising grounds on merit also.
6. The ld. D.R. has placed reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).
7. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that this appeal is not maintainable, as it was filed against an order passed by the Assessing Officer consequent to the illegal order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, once it is held that the direction of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal and not in accordance with the law, any order passed consequent thereto is also illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, any appeal against that order is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Since the ld. CIT(A) has acted in accordance with the law and we do not find any infirmity therein, we confirm his order.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.
Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED: 23rd January, 2015 JJ:0901 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR :-4-:
Assistant Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free