ANNAPURNA MARKETING CO.,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-2, ROURKELA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 353/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 January 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in passing a summary and non-speaking order, violating statutory obligations. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a de novo decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for being filed late and lack of cooperation. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without addressing each ground of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order and dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRI

For Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka
Hearing: 10/01Pronounced: 10/01

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Annapurna Marketing Co. Marketing Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela 2, Rourkela Basanti Basanti Colony Colony Road, Road, Udit Udit Nagar, Rourkela. Nagar, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No. No.AARFA 0259 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka , DR Date of Hearing : 10/01/ 20 / 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 10/01 01/2020 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 29.8.2019 Sambalpur dated 29.8.2019 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2020-2011.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: The assessee has raised the following grounds:

“ 1.That, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1.That, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the estimation of income by the Ld. Assessing Officer in confirming the estimation of income by the Ld. Assessing Officer in confirming the estimation of income by the Ld. Assessing Officer in view of the fact that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and view of the fact that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and view of the fact that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and estimation of income is permissible u/s 144 only, not u/s 143(3), estimation of income is permissible u/s 144 only, not u/s 143(3), estimation of income is permissible u/s 144 only, not u/s 143(3), therefore the orders of the Ld. Aut therefore the orders of the Ld. Authorities below are to be set aside. horities below are to be set aside.

2.

That, the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong in estimating 2. That, the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong in estimating 2. That, the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong in estimating the income at the rate of 5% from Slag Trading business without the income at the rate of 5% from Slag Trading business without the income at the rate of 5% from Slag Trading business without giving of comparative cases or without issuing of show cause to the giving of comparative cases or without issuing of show cause to the giving of comparative cases or without issuing of show cause to the estimation and estimation and the Ld. Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) is not the Ld. Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct in endorsing the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore correct in endorsing the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore correct in endorsing the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore the estimation is liable to be deleted. the estimation is liable to be deleted.

P a g e 1 | 3

3.

That, the Ld. Forums below erred in facts in circumstances in estimating the profit @4% from transportation business without giving any comparable cases or without issuing show cause notice to the estimation, therefore the estimation is illegal and liable to be deleted.

4.

That, the Ld. Authorities below are not correct in the facts and circumstances in treating the interest income of Rs. 19,467 as undisclosed income as the same had been duly considered in the books of account of the appellant.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte qua the assessee after hearing ld D.R. 4. Having heard ld D.R., I find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) exparte in a summary manner on the ground of appeal being filed more than six years and the assessee was not co- operative. I further hold that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing a non- speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration and he failed in discharging the statutory obligation to state the reasons for his decision on each such points, which arose for determination in assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). If Ld. CIT(A) passes a summary order on merits; it amounts to contraventions of statutory role of Ld. CIT(A) as prescribed U/s 250(6) and Section 251 of I.T. Act. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 of I.T. Act, for fresh disposal of appeal. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I am inclined

P a g e 2 | 3 to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by assessee on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co- operate in the appellate proceeding. Hence, the grounds of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10 /01/2020.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →