Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 147, determining total income at Rs. 93,79,971. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), raising grounds challenging the validity of the notice and the addition, but failed to comply with notices and the appeal was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking and reasoned order, adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the validity of the notice u/s 148. The order was found to be non-speaking and dismissed for non-compliance without addressing the merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking and reasoned order, and whether the grounds challenging the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act were properly adjudicated.
Sections Cited
139(1), 147, 148, 144, 144B, 149, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, 149(1)(b), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Shri Marreddy Mekala, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. PAN:CHEPM2914C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Shri Marreddy Mekala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 02.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“ the Act”) for the A.Y. 2015– 16. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 25.04.2022. After considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 20.03.2024, determining the total income at Rs. 93,79,971.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as grounds on the addition of Rs. 93,79,971 made by the Ld. AO. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us, primarily raising two issues:
(i) the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, and (ii) the addition of Rs. 93,79,971 made by the Ld. AO in the reassessment order.
Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that although the assessee could not comply with the notices before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) was still required to pass a speaking order, dealing with the issues raised in the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from a legal infirmity, as it does not adjudicate the specific legal ground regarding the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a summary manner without dealing with the merits of the case or recording any reasoned findings.
The Ld. AR therefore prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the prayer for remand and submitted that sufficient opportunity had already been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), and the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued. Therefore, no further opportunity should be given.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and did not adjudicate the specific ground challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. We have gone through the impugned appellate order and on perusal of the same, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any findings or reasons on any of the grounds raised by the assessee. The order is non-speaking in nature and merely states that the appeal is being dismissed for non-compliance.
It is a settled principle of law that the appellate authority is required to dispose of an appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order, especially when a legal ground regarding jurisdiction, such as the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been specifically raised.
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to his file with the direction to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee afresh, by passing a speaking and reasoned order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th May, 2025.