Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee had raised additional grounds before the CIT(A) which were legal in nature, but the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate them, dismissing the appeal on other grounds.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, had a statutory duty to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee. Since the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the additional grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) failed in its duty by not adjudicating additional grounds raised by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15.
At the outset, Ld. AR drawn my attention to the fact that he has raised additional ground during appellate proceedings pending before Ld. CIT(A) and drawn my attention to page 5 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order wherein assessee has raised additional grounds No. 1 to 3 which are legal in nature, but Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated any of the additional grounds so raised by the assessee.
Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai.
After having gone through the entire facts of the present case and after hearing the parties at length I found the although assessee had raised specific additional grounds No. 1 to 3 before Ld. CIT(A) but Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the other grounds. In my view Ld. CIT(A) being a quasi-judicial authority was under statutory and legal duty to adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee before him but on the contrary he has failed to discharge his statutory duties.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the additional ground raised by the assessee providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.