Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT-1 (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Verbose Grounds containing Latin maxims, Irrelevant Allegations & 35 Respondents – Grounds of appeal must be concise, specific & without narrative- ITAT Ahmedabad declares appeal defective
Assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs 3,26,60,820. During assessment proceedings, AO noted that Assessee had issued 6,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 180 per share. AO made addition of Rs. 6,58,62,000/- on account of share capital/share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) completing the assessment u/s 143(3) & raised a demand of Rs2,89,54,211/-. CIT(A) confirmed the additions.
Tribunal noted that:
- Form No. 36 names as many as 30–35 “respondents/defendants” including Union of India, CBDT, MCA & various individual officers, which is not permissible u/s 253.The only proper respondent in an income-tax appeal is the jurisdictional AO.
- Statement of Facts runs into several pages containing verbose & unintelligible narrative couched in Latin maxims & allegations of conspiracy, contempt, & fraud against public servants. These averments are wholly irrelevant for the adjudication of an appeal u/s 253 .
- Grounds of Appeal are sprawling (more than 30 in number), highly argumentative, & They do not specifically raise any grievance against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of share capital/share premium.
Tribunal held the appeal as filed is in total violation of Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as per which, the grounds of appeal must be concise, specific & without narrative. Tribunal’s jurisdiction u/s 253 is confined to examining the correctness of orders passed by AO & CIT(A) under the Income-tax Act. Issues relating to constitutional validity, conspiracy, contempt of court, defamation, or damages are far beyond the scope of Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The present filing does not identify any precise ground relating to the addition/disallowance sustained by CIT(A). In absence of clear, concise grounds, the appeal becomes incapable of adjudication. Hence, Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is defective & not maintainable in its present form. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Tribunal further noted that the Revenue’s appeal against the very same order of the CIT(A) has been dismissed on merits. Thus, apart from the assessee’s appeal being defective in form, it has also become infructuous in substance.
