Sanjay Somani vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

ITA/12/2013HC Madhya Pradesh05 April 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU KEMKAR2 pages

For Petitioner: Sumit Nema

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the Tribunal had not discussed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and had failed to consider the judgments referred to by the assessee 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 High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal was directed to consider the assessee's written submissions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Kelvinator case. The appeal was allowed to this extent.

What were the facts?

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the assessee, Shri Sumit Nema, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The assessee contended that the Tribunal had decided the matter without considering his written submissions, which detailed various grounds challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and cited Supreme Court judgments. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's practice of 'bunching' appeals might have led to the overlooking of his submissions. The Revenue was 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 law/mixed law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The Tribunal erred by passing an order without considering the assessee's detailed written submissions, which included various grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s order and cited Supreme Court judgments. The practice of bunching appeals led to the overlooking of these submissions. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No.12/2013 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 →