Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed to the ITAT against an order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for A.Y. 2015-16. The Commissioner had disposed of the assessee's first appeal (filed against an AO's order under Section 154) by considering only a stay of demand application, without adjudicating the actual issues involved.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner erred by not adjudicating the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on the issues, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing of an appeal under Section 250 without adjudicating the substantive issues, by inadvertently considering only a stay of demand application.
Sections Cited
250, 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & MS. RENU JAUHRI
O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.
Perusing the impugned order, it clearly appears that while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 28/03/2025 u/s 154 of the act by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. Commissioner has not issued any notice but somehow may be oversight or inadvertently taken in the M/s. Ikab Securities and Investment now known as MK Ventures Capital Limited consideration, the application for stay of demand dt. 26/05/2025 and accordingly disposed of the appeal, without adjudicating the appropriate issues involved in the 1st appeal filed/pending before him. Therefore, this court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner, for decision afresh, suffice to say by provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. commissioner for decision afresh.