What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and had passed non-speaking orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders for two assessment years, alleging that the CIT(A) passed non-speaking orders without adjudicating the grounds and submissions. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer based on alleged partner withdrawals from cash sales.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing non-speaking orders without properly adjudicating the assessee's grounds and submissions, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified without corroborative evidence.

Anantara Jewels LLP, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-36], New Delhi both dated 30.01.2019 pertaining to assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The grounds raised in (AY 2014-15) read as under:-

1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming order passed by Assessing Officer without adjudicating the ground raised and submission made by the appellant hence, the order so passed u/s. 250 of the Act is unjust, arbitrary and bad in law.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in passing non-speaking order without appreciating the submission made during the course of appellate proceedings.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lacs to the income declared on account of alleged withdrawals made by the partners directly out of cash sales on the basis of admission made during the post survey proceeding in the absence of corroborative independent evidence. 4. That the appellant crave to add, amend or delete any ground of appeal

at the time of hearing.

3. The grounds raised in (AY 2015-16) read as under:-

2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in passing non-speaking order without appreciating the submission made during the course of appellate proceedings.

3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20 lacs to the income declared on account of alleged withdrawals made by the partners directly out of cash sales on the basis of admission made during the post survey proceeding in the absence of corroborative independent evidence.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, as the time to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act did not expired, hence the notice so issued u/s. 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 5. That the appellant crave to add, amend or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

4. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contention raised in the grounds of appeals and stated that in both the appeals Ld. CIT(A) has passed the respective impugned orders without adjudicating the ground raised and submission made by the assessee. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing non-speaking order without appreciating the submission made during the course of appellate proceedings. In view of above, he requested that the issues in dispute in both the appeals, may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, after considering each and every aspect of the matter alongwith the submissions of the assessee by passing a speaking order.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in both the appeals and pass a speaking order. For the speedy disposal of the appeal, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 23.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 7. In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 02.03.2020. Sd/-

ANANTARA JEWELS LLP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 52(4), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments