M/S.CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MARGAO AND ANR.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the ITAT dated January 15, 2015, was vitiated solely on the ground that it failed to consider the cross-objections filed by the assessee. The Court found that the specific jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05, were not addressed by the ITAT. Since the Revenue conceded this point, the High Court quashed and set aside the ITAT's order. The appeal before the ITAT (ITA NO.288/PNJ/2014) was restored to its file for a fresh decision. The ITAT was directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the parties and dealing with the assessee's cross-objections in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties on merits were left open. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate tribunal must consider all grounds raised by the parties, including those in cross-objections, to render a valid order.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated January 15, 2015. The appeal arose from the ITAT's decision on Appeal No. ITA NO.288/PNJ/2014, which was preferred by the Revenue (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Margao, Goa). The assessee contended that the ITAT's order was vitiated because it failed to consider specific jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee in their cross-objections dated October 10, 2014. These grounds related to the reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue conceded that these grounds were raised but not considered by the ITAT.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 15, 2015, is vitiated for non-consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the cross objections dated October 10, 2014? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The ITAT's order is bad in law as it failed to address the jurisdictional grounds raised in the cross-objections concerning the reopening of assessment for AY 2004-05. The assessee relied on the fact that these grounds were specifically pleaded. Revenue's contention: The Revenue fairly accepted that the grounds were raised by the assessee but not considered by the ITAT while disposing of the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER F.M. REIS, J.)
Heard Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2 txa43-15
Admit, on the following substantial question of law : Whether the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15/1/2015, stands vitiated for non-consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the cross objections dated 10/10/2014 ?
Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that in the cross objection filed by the appellant dated 10/10/2014 there were specific juri ictional grounds raised by the appellant, inter alia, disputing the exercise carried out by the respondents to reopen the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year 2004-05. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal to point out that these contentions have not at all been addressed by the learned Tribunal whilst disposing of the appeal preferred by the respondents/Revenue. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein has fairly accepted the said position that these grounds were raised, but not considered by the learned Tribunal whilst disposing of the appeal
3 txa43-15 preferred by the Revenue.
Having heard the learned Counsel, we find that on this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the leaned Tribunal stands vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by the respondents, afresh, after hearing the parties and dealing with the cross objections filed by the appellant herein, in accordance with law.
In view of the above, we pass the following Order : (I) The impugned Order dated 15th January, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji is quashed and set aside. (II) Appeal No. ITA NO.288/PNJ/2014 is restored to the file of the learned Tribunal. (III) The learned Tribunal shall decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made herein above, in accordance with law. (IV) All the contentions of the parties, on merits, are left open. (V)
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
K.L. WADANE, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
