ITO 8 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S SWATI INTERIOR CONCEPTS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-14 dated 30.07.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11.

read as under :

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the reasons recorded for reopening are not proper and are vague, without having regard to the fact that the income escaping assessment on account of bogus purchases, has been specifically mentioned in the reasons alongwith the name of the alleged bogus supplier & the quantum of bogus purchase.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A] erred in quashing the assessment order on the ground that the case was not validly reopened." II. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to add a new ground that may be necessary at the time of hearing. III. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals] on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

3. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. I note that in this case addition was made for bogus purchase by the AO. Assessee’s appeal before Ld.CIT(A) challenged both the jurisdictional aspect as well as merit of the addition. Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue on reopening in favour of assessee and held that hence he is not adjudicating upon the merits. We find that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy 77 ITR 276 had expounded that an appellate authority cannot decide only one issue arising out of many issues and decline to go into to the other issues raised before it on the ground that further issues will not arise in view of the finding on the issue decided by it. It was expounded that if the appellate authority declines to consider and decide the other issues, it could only protract and delay the proceedings, for the assessee has to get the decision of the appellate authority on the initial point set aside by approaching a higher appellate authority and thereafter, again go before the appellate authority for the decision on the other issues left undecided by it earlier. It was held that this will amount to multiplication proceedings under the Act. It was further expounded that subordinate courts and Tribunal’s should as far as possible give their views on all the points raised before them so that the higher courts will have the benefit of the decision on other points also, if the necessity arises.

4. Examining the present appeal on the touchstone of above said case law, I find that the order of Ld.CIT(A) here directly falls under the ambit of Hon’ble Court’s order as above. Ld.CIT(A) has decided one issue and has left undecided another issue duly raised before him. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this issue raised by the assessee before him on the merits needs to be remitted to the file of Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(a) is directed to complete his appellate order by deciding on the merits, which was duly raised before him by the assessee. After the order of Ld.CIT(A) is complete upon adjudication of this issue, both the parties will be at liberty to file necessary appeals as and if necessary.

5. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of Ld.CIT(A). In view of the order remitting the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) so as to complete his order, the issue raised in this appeal is not being adjudicated.

Pronounced in the open court on 21.10.2021.