OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 2550/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 February 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)9 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee, previously Swati Concast and Power Ltd., declared a loss for AY 2013-14. The AO reopened assessment based on information that the assessee received Rs. 24.2 crore from M/s. Turf Marketing and Advertising Pvt. Ltd., adding this amount as unexplained credit under Section 68 and 2% as accommodation entry under Section 69C. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits, citing non-compliance by the assessee's accountant during proceedings.

Held

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order on merits, which is mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Citing various precedents, it held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO, remanding the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on its merits, and if the CIT(A) is obligated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a reasoned order stating points for determination and the decision.

Sections Cited

250, 147, 144, 68, 69C, 144B, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 250(6), 246A, 251, 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: February 28th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 18.10.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/144 of the Act, dated 19.05.2023.

We have heard the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed and the appeal may be dismissed. On perusal of the appellate order, it is noticed that while the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed non- compliance on the part of the assessee as the notices sent were not complied with but he has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. In this respect, it is relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under:

Thus, section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and the decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. In the present case before us, the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the reasons after examining the records while disposing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has neither adjudicated upon various grounds of appeal

nor has passed a reasoned order for arriving at the decision, as is required u/s 250(6) of the Act. We further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose of the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: