INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, H.P vs. JOGINDRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SOLAN, H.P

The Revenue has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) primarily on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A), while deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, merely followed the

The learned CIT-DR invited our attention specifically to Ground No.6 raised by the Revenue. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted all the additions solely by placing reliance upon the appellate order passed in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2017-18. It was argued that the issues which were adjudicated in A.Y. 2017-18 were entirely different from the issues arising in the present assessment year and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the controversy stood concluded in favour of the assessee. It was thus contended that the impugned order, to the extent it is founded upon such erroneous assumption, cannot be sustained.

Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative fairly submitted that the grievance raised by the Revenue in Ground No. 6, namely that the additions made in the present assessment year have not been independently adjudicated on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), deserves reconsideration. It was fairly conceded that Ground No. 6 of the Revenue was not the subject matter of

We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the material available on record. We find that the Revenue, through Ground No. 6, has questioned the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the assessee's appeal by simply following the appellate order passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has indeed proceeded on the premise that the facts and issues involved in the year under consideration are similar to those decided in Assessment Year 2017-18 and, on that basis alone, deleted the additions.

During the course of hearing, however, the learned Authorised Representative fairly conceded that the issue raised by the Revenue in Ground No. 6, namely that the additions made during the year have not been independently adjudicated on their own merits, was not the subject matter of consideration in the

In view of the above fair concession and considering that an independent adjudication on merits is necessary in respect of the controversy covered by Ground No. 6, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore only Ground No. 6 to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the said issue afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a speaking order.

It is made clear that the present remand is strictly confined to Ground No. 6 of the Revenue's appeal. The remaining grounds raised by the Revenue are not restored and shall stand adjudicated independently on their own merits.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.