VIPING KUMAR PANDEY,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, RANGE-1(5), ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 60/ALLD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad08 September 2023AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad for non-application of mind as it lacked reasoning and failed to discuss the relevant facts and law. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition without hearing the assessee or discussing the facts and law.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a reasoned order and properly applied its mind to the facts and law before confirming the AO's addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD “SMC”

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Hearing: 04/09/2023Pronounced: 08/09/2023

स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AMVPP1099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 04/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 28.12.2022 for AY. 2010-11.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. However, on perusal of the ground no. 2 of the assessee, it is noted that the assessee is aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued twice notices, directing the assessee to file reply by 02.12.02022. And taking note that the assessee did not file any reply, he was of the opinion that the assessee has nothing more to say in respect of the grounds of appeal raised before him, and resultantly, confirmed the action of the AO making an addition of Rs.7,60,200/- ex-parte qua assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO without discussing either the relevant facts/law on the issues raised by the assessee. Merely by stating that he [Ld CIT(A)] has passed the order

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →