Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, for assessment year 2015-2016. The assessee claimed to have provided all details and evidence to the Assessing Officer, but alleged that the officer did not consider them and proceeded with additions. The assessee also argued that the appellate authority passed a non-speaking order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Id. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai was a non-speaking order and did not adequately address the assessee's submissions. This was considered a violation of judicial principles.
Key Issues
Whether the appellate authority passed a speaking order considering the submissions made by the assessee. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were liable to be deleted due to non-consideration of evidence.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.04.2025, passed by the Id. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2015-2016.
It was submitted by the ld.AR that before the Assessing Officer the assessee had provided all the details. The assessee has also filed paper book containing 57 pages enclosing the various replies given by the assessee. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the Assessing Officer did not consider explanation of the assessee but has taken a stand that sufficient details and evidences have not been produced. It was further submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai has without considering the explanation of the assessee blindly by a non-speaking order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission that the evidence having been submitted, the addition as made by the ld.AO and as confirmed by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai is liable to be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that all the details had called for by the Assessing Officer have not been produced. It was the submission that the ledger account has not been produced to which the ld. AR submitted that the ledger account was not called for at all.
We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, a perusal of the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai shows that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai has extracted from pages 4 to 9 in his order the written submission of the assessee. He has dismissed the appeal of the assessee with an one-line order stating that the assessee submitted its submissions and same are considered but not found to be satisfactory and acceptable. This not a speaking order by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai. When the assessee has given a submission, it is incumbent on the appellate authority to pass a speaking order and if necessary to call for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The fact that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai has done nothing but passed an one-line order practically and that too non-finding of fault with the submissions filed by the assessee is in total violation of the principle of judicial principle expected from an appellate authority. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai to adjudicate the issues afresh and pass a speaking order after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.