JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE V. CIT(A) , DEHI

ITA 2477/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) erroneously used the same statement of facts and findings from a different assessment year (2011-12) in the order for 2014-15. The Tribunal noted the procedural error and the incorrect application of facts pertaining to a different assessment year, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order for a fresh examination of the appeals raised by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30142 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS
• Section: 144; 250; 251; 90; 244A; 246A

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Tower 14, Cyber City, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. PAN: AAACJ4233B V s The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri Prakash L Pathade – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15; dated 27.09.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in using same statement of facts and findings for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2014-15 whereas the statement of facts and findings are not relevant at all for Assessment Year 2014-15. ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 2 2] Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 whereas the facts and grounds of appeal decided by learned CIT(A) pertain to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3] The learned CIT(A) further erred in not deciding on the grounds of appeal as per appeal no. CIT (A), Pune- 7/10278/2019-20 for AY 2014-15 pertaining to non-grant of relief u/s 90/90A and non- granting of credit of TDS. Accordingly, assessee submits that the order in question passed u/s 250 of the Income tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 be treated null and void. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by assessee for A.Y.2014-15. Ld.AR took us through the Form No.35, which is the Form for appeal before the ld.CIT(A), and read out the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. Ld.AR took us through the order of ld.CTI(A) and demonstrated that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by assessee, ld.AR further submitted that ld.CIT(A) has erroneously reproduced the grounds and facts pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 in the order for A.Y.2014-15. Ld.AR took us through the ld.CIT(A)’s order for A.Y.2011-12 and Form No.35 of ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 3 A.Y.2011-12. Ld.AR, therefore submitted that ld.CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue accepted that there is an apparent mistake in the order of ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2014-15. Ld.DR submitted that the order may be set-aside to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that there is apparent mistake in the order of the ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2014-15 dated 27.09.2024. It is also observed that ld.CIT(A) at page no.2 of the order for A.Y.2014-15 has reproduced the facts which are pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 as seen from the order of ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2011-12 dated 27.09.2024. Thus, apparently it seems that both the orders were passed on the same date and therefore, facts pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 have been mentioned for A.Y.2014-15. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by Assessee for A.Y.2014-15 as per Form No.35 are as under : ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 4 “1. The Learned A.O. failed to consider total Income as per revised Income Tax return while passing the order u/s 154. 2. The learned A.O. failed to give relief u/s 90 190A of Rs.18,226,720 of the Income Tax Ac t, 1961 which the assessee was entitled to as per law. 3. The learned A.O. failed to give relief u/s 90 90A while issuing the refund, though the relief u/s 90/90A claimed by the assessee in the ret urn of income was granted by the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) rws 144C(3) of the Act. 4. The learned A.O. erred in not granting credit of the TDS and amount of Rs. 1,574,817 being deducted in the name of John Deere Equipment private Limited to which has merged with the assessee company with effect from 1 April 2010. 5. The learned A.O. failed to give interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which the assessee was entitled to as per law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, am end or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 6. However, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2014-15 has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal. Rather ld.CIT(A) has merely set-aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. Ld.CIT(A) in the order has mentioned that appeal has been allowed for statistical purpose. As per section 246A r.w.s. 251 of the Act, ld.CIT(A) can set-aside for verification only when assessment order is passed under section 144 of the Act. In this case, it is not the case. Therefore, as per section 251 of the Act, ld.CIT(A) do not have any power to set-aside for verification. As per section ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 5 251 of the Act, ld.CIT(A) has to decide each and every ground of the appeal raised by the assessee. 6.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs.Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 6 appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote. 6.2 Thus, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27th Jan, 2024/ SGR* ITA No.2477/PUN/2024 [A] 7 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "