[2016] 177 TTJ 1 (Mumbai.) Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs. CIT A.Y.: 2007-08 Date of Order: 1st February, 2016

Facts
The assessment of total
income of the assessee company was completed by the Assessing Officer
(AO) vide his order dated 28th December, 2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the
Act. Subsequently, the AO passed an order, dated 24th February, 2014, to
give effect to an order dated 6th February, 2013 passed u/s. 263 of the
Act.

Aggrieved by the additions made in the order dated 6th
February, 2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held
The
Tribunal observed that the assessee company has preferred a first appeal
directly before the Tribunal against order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
263 of the Act. The Tribunal noticed that an appeal against an order
passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 lies with the CIT(A), u/s. 246A(1)(a) of
the Act, being an order passed u/s. 143(3) and not with the Tribunal
under section 253. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of CIT vs. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC), it
observed that an appeal under the Act is a statutory right which
emanates only from the statute. The assessee does not have a vested
right to appeal, unless provided for in the statute.

The
Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate the appeal filed by the
assessee, and that the assessee is at liberty to file an appeal before
the CIT(A) u/s. 246A(1)(a) of the Act, for adjudication on merits. It
also observed that while adjudicating the condonation application, the
CIT(A) shall liberally consider the fact that in the intervening period,
the assessee company was pursuing the appeal with the Tribunal, albeit
at the wrong forum with the Tribunal, instead of filing the first appeal
with the CIT(A) as provided in the Act.

The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.