Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram, which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The assessee contended that the lower appellate authority erred by not deciding all grounds of appeal, by disposing of grounds summarily, and by mechanically adopting the assessment order's reasoning.
Held
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the Addl./JCIT(A) was set aside and remitted back to the Addl. CIT(A) to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to pass a speaking order on all grounds of appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority had properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal and provided a speaking order with detailed reasons.
Sections Cited
250(6), 13, 11, 12, 80G, 14, 13(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (1) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram [“Addl/JCIT(A)”, for short], whereby the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed. The grounds of appeal
of the assessee are as under: -
1. That the Learned Addl./Jt.C.I.T.(Appeals)-1, Gurugram has erred in law and on facts in omitting to decide the assessee’s Grounds No. 4,5 and 6 as reproduced in the appellate order on pages 2 and 3 and in only dealing with first 3 grounds of appeal before him as admitted by him in para 4.1 of the appellate order. 2) That the failure to adjudicate grounds No. 4,5 and 6 of grounds of appeal before him constitutes a mistake as held by the jurisdictional High Court ie. Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KESHAV FRUIT MART reported in 199 ITR Page 771. 3) That the learned Addl./Jt.C.I.7.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in disposing off even grounds No. 1,2 and 3 in a summary manner without deciding the grounds in the manner prescribed by the provisions of Section 250 Sub-Section (6) of the LT. Act 1961 Le. stating the facts regarding each ground of appeal, his decision on such ground and detailed reasons for decision in respect of each ground.
1. 4) That he has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the assessee’s written submissions regarding the aforesaid grounds, as reproduced in the appellate order On pages 8, 9 and 10, as evident from’ para 4.2 of the order which makes only a casual reference to the road orders/judgments filed by assessee in only 3 lines while the written arguments run into more than 2 pages. 5) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the A.O. had invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the I.T. Act without discharging the onus of proving that the person specified U/s 13(3) of the I.T. Act derived any undue benefit from the Society which, under the law lay on the A.O. but only by stating that Smt. Manju Mahendra was a person covered by Section 13(3) of the 1I.T. Act. 6) That without prejudice to. the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on fact in confirming the computation of total income by A.O. at Rs.49,77,340/as against NIL income declared in the return by invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the 1.T. Act and denying the exemption U/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 7) That the learned Addl./Jt.C.I.T(Appeals) has further erred in violating of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the assessee and confirmed in appeal of the Department by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing exemption U/s 80G of the Act which could only be allowed if the assessee’s income had been exempt U/s 11 and 12 as it is a pre- condition for exemption under the aforesaid provisions vide sub section (5) Clause (i) of the Act. 8) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in mechanically adopting the reasoning and finding in the assessment order ignoring the assessee’s written reply dated 16.12.2010 filed before the A.O. in Assessment Year 2008-09 filed at pages 30-31 of the paper book before C.I.T.(Appeals). 9) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made to the returned income of Rs.1,65,600/ignoring the provisions of the Act namely, Sections 11 and 13 which did not permit any addition to the returned income and only permitted denial of exemption U/s 11 if the provisi.s of Section 13 are applicable. 10) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./it.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Income-tax Act does not permit any disallowance or addition to the returned income to arrive at a hypothetical income and that the above addition was also contrary to the C.B.D.T. Circular No.5P of 1968 dated 19.06.1968. 11) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.I.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in confirming the computation of income of the assessee under the head Page 3 of 5 Business ignoring that the provisions of Section 14 of the I.T. Act have no application to the case of Charitable Institution as explained by the C.B.D.T. Circular Cited in the foregoing ground. 12) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl/Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,65,600/on account under charging of rent from Mrs. Manju Mahendra proprietor of M/s Optical Centre a person covered by Section 13(3) of the Act. 13) That the appellate order is arbitrary, unjust, excessive, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.” (1.1) In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee filed a paper book containing the following particulars: -
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of appeal
as per Form No.
35. He further submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) also lacks clarity and conviction. He submitted that all the issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) or to the file of Page 4 of 5 the Ld. CIT(A), as the case may be, with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the direction should also be given to pass a speaking order on all the grounds of appeal that have been raised by the assessee in Form No. 35 in the appeal filed against the assessment order. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for revenue expresses no objection to this.
(2.1) In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dated 23/08/2024 is set aside and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/03/2025.