Sanjay Somani vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The High Court found that the Tribunal had indeed failed to discuss the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and had not taken into consideration the judgments referred to by the appellant in its written submissions, including the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's order was non-speaking, as the grounds raised were not dealt with. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction to consider the appellant's written submissions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed to this extent.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Shri Sumit Nema, is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The assessee contends that the Tribunal decided the appeal without considering the written submissions made by the appellant, which detailed various grounds challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and cited Supreme Court judgments. The assessee's concern is that the Tribunal, by bunching together multiple appeals, may have overlooked these crucial submissions. The revenue is represented by Shri R.L. Jain, Senior Counsel, and Ms. Veena Mandlik.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse, inasmuch as it was passed by bunching together appeals which involved different facts and the Tribunal has overlooked material facts and written submissions made by the appellant during the course of appeal? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in adjudication). Assessee's Contentions: The Tribunal's order is perverse because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed written submissions, which included references to Supreme Court judgments. The practice of bunching appeals led to the oversight of these submissions. The assessee relied on the principle that all material facts and arguments must be considered for a valid order. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appeal No.11/2013 05.04.2014
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent / Revenue, on advance copy. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law: - Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as it was passed by bunching together appeals which involved different facts and the Tribunal has overlooked material facts and written submissions made by the appellant during the course of appeal? With consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is finally disposed of. According to the appellant, the Tribunal has decided the matter without taking into consideration the written submissions submitted by the appellant in which the appellant had in detail raised various grounds challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He submits that the various judgments of the Supreme Court were also referred to in the written submissions. However, the Tribunal had passed order by bunching various appeals, which may have caused overlooking of the appellant's submissions, which were based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the written submissions as also the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not at all discussed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it has also failed to take into consideration the judgments, which were referred to by the appellant in the written submissions, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)]. It is also revealed that the order of the Tribunal is non-speaking as the grounds raised have not been dealt with. In view of the aforesaid, we answer the question framed in this appeal in favour of the assessee and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant in the written arguments as also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator (supra). With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. C.c. within three days. (Shantanu Kemkar) (J.K. Jain) Judge
Judge Pithawe RC
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
