M.K.FAIZAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-7(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2531/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 March 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was agreed upon by both parties due to the deficiencies in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) order was non-speaking on the issues of reopening and merits. The assessee's counsel and the Revenue's representative agreed that the matter needed to be reconsidered due to the lack of discussion by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid given its non-speaking nature on the reopening and merits of the case. The need for proper adjudication of the issues by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 03.03.2022Pronounced: 04.03.2022

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in dated 28.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-7(4), Chennai, for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 14.12.2017.

2 2. At the outset is it noticed by the Bench that the CIT(A)’s order is totally non-speaking on the issue of reopening as well as the issue on merits. The relevant decision of the CIT(A) reads as under:- 1. Issue of Re-opening u/s 147:-

The assessment was re-opened on the basis of Revenue Audit objection, whereby A.O. is duty bound to reopen the case, if warranted. Hence, there is no infirmity in A.O.’s action of re-opening u/s 147. This ground stands dismissed.

2.

Issue of merits:-

The A.R.’s have submitted written submissions which have already been reproduced supra. However, no explanation has been forthcoming nor has the A.O.’s order been rebutted. In the result, the A.O.’s order requires no interfere and this ground is dismissed.”

3.

When this was pointed out to ld.counsel for the assessee as well as ld. Senior DR, both conceded that the matter has to go back because the CIT(A) has not discussed the facts. At this point, ld.counsel for the assessee requested that material has to be placed and some additional evidences has to be filed for adjudication of the issues and hence, matter can be remanded back to the file of the AO instead of CIT(A). To this preposition, ld.Senior DR agreed. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO, as agreed by both the sides.

3 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 4th March, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →