| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0154 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250 Section 154
Where assessee contended that earlier rectification order under section 154 got merged with the subsequent rectification order under section 154, and therefore, the disallowance made by AO in the original rectification order could be challenged in appeal proceedings before CIT(A), contention of assessee was held to be untenable because the right course of remedy would have been that assessee should have filed the appeal before the appellate forum against the first rectification order, and/or had filed an application for rectification against the said order. However, assessee was granted liberty to file appeal before the first appellate authority against the first rectification order along with petition for condonation delay where it can challenge such disallowance in the said appeal. AO was also directed to dispose of the rectification application if the assessee had field such an application first rectification order, expeditiously.
|
Appeal [CIT(A)] - Dismissal of appeal of assessee by holding that grounds of appeal did not pertain to the rectification order under appeal - Whether earlier order passed under section 154 got merged with the subsequent order under section 154, which could be challenged before CIT(A) -
Assessee was a Government of India Undertaking, engaged in the business of production of liquified petroleum gas and other natural gases. Pursuant to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), AO passed an order under section 154 and made disallowance of prior period expenditure. Assessee contended that disallowance included certain amount of prior period depreciation disallowed by the assessee suo motu. AO reduced the income of assessee by such amount. In appeal before CIT(A), assessee challenged the entire disallowance of prior period expenditure. CIT(A) held that appeal of assessee did not pertain to the rectification order under appeal, he thus, dismissed the appeal. Case of assessee was that earlier rectification order dated 19-2-2015 under section 154 got merged with the subsequent rectification order dated 28-7-2015 under section 154, and therefore, the disallowance made by AO in the original rectification order can be challenged in instant proceedings. Held: Contention of assessee was untenable because the right course of remedy would have been that assessee should have filed the appeal before the appellate forum against the first rectification order, and/or had filed an application for rectification against the said order. Since right to appeal is a substantial right and if any disallowance has been made, which otherwise is not sustainable in law and on facts, then such a legal remedy is always available to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice. Assessee was granted liberty to file appeal before the first appellate authority against the first rectification order along with petition for condonation of delay where it can challenge such disallowance in the said appeal. AO was also directed to dispose of the rectification application if the assessee had filed such an application against first rectification order, expeditiously.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. : 2008-09
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|