SHRI GULAM MUSTAFA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In both years, the assessee has raised several grounds and in both years, as per Ground No. 4, this is the grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT (A) has decided the appeal without giving reasons and hence, his order is bad in law.

In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee pointed out that in both years, learned CIT (A) has reproduced Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts and written submissions filed by the assessee before him and thereafter reproduced the relevant paras of the assessment order and thereafter, he has decided these two appeals in an identical line which says that “I agree with the assessing officer and the appeal is dismissed. She submitted that under these facts, the order of CIT (A) should be set aside and the issue on merit should be decided in favour of the assessee or it may be restored to CIT (A) in both years for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A) in both years.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of CIT (A) and we find that no reasoning is given by CIT (A) at all for deciding the appeal of the assessee in both years. This is a settled position of law that any quasi judicial authority should pass a speaking and reasoned order and in the present case, the CIT (A) has not given any reasoning at all. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT (A) in both years and restore the matter to the file of CIT (A) in both years for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.