MUJEEB KHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/196/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02013089201821 August 2018Author: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,GOVERDHAN BARDHAR2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to move a rectification application before the ITAT. The purpose of this application would be to request the ITAT to formally set aside the CIT(A)'s order dated 12.04.2017. This action is intended to ensure that a fresh adjudication of the appeal takes place before the CIT(A) without any prejudice or influence from its earlier judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original issues raised before the ITAT, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the remand order. The operative direction is for the assessee to seek rectification from the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mujeeb Khan, Proprietor of M/s. M.K. Repair Center, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench. The ITAT, in its order dated 27.02.2018, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for deciding two issues raised by the assessee: the denial of an opportunity for cross-examination of an attesting witness and the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's contention before the High Court was that the ITAT's order, while remanding the case, did not formally set aside the CIT(A)'s earlier order dated 12.04.2017, potentially leading to the CIT(A) reiterating the same judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] without formally setting aside the CIT(A)'s earlier order dated 12.04.2017, thereby risking the reiteration of the same judgment. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the ITAT's order of remand was procedurally flawed as it did not explicitly set aside the CIT(A)'s prior order. This omission, according to the appellant, could lead to the CIT(A) being influenced by its previous decision and passing a similar order again, defeating the purpose of the remand. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding this procedural aspect. However, they accepted notice and were represented before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 196/2018 Mujeeb Khan, Prop. M/s. M.K. Repair Center, Near Railway Phatak, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanuj Agarwal. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

Order 21/08/2018 One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches (SMC), Jaipur (for short ‘the ITAt’) vide its order dated 27.02.2018, while remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short ‘the CIT (A)’] for deciding two questions raised by the appellant with regard to non- providing opportunity of cross-examination of the attesting witness and non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee, has not formally set aside the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the CIT(A), which would result in the CIT(A) reiterating the same judgment again. Issue notice to respondent. Mr. Sameer Jain, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2 of 2) [ITA-196/2018] Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perusing the material on record especially the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the ITAT, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would meet if the appellant is required to move rectification application before ITAT requesting it to formally set aside the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the CIT(A) so that fresh adjudication of appeal before the CIT(A) may take place without being influenced by its earlier judgment. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/50

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →