Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2012-2013, challenging various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The core contention was that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order.
Held
The Tribunal agreed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order, as it summarily affirmed the AO's findings without independent reasoning, which violates the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh examination and a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the CIT(A)'s order, which summarily affirmed the AO's findings without independent reasoning, constituted a non-speaking order, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2012-2013 Sri.Vettuvanthodi Abdul Azeez The Assistant Commissioner SELMEC, Melekunath Paramb of Income-tax, Circle 2(1) v. B.C.Road, Cheruvannur, Ferok Kozhikode. Kozhikode – 673 631. PAN : AEYPA7989J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Rishal K, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 11th October, 2022 and it relates to the assessment year 2012-2013, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2022- 23/1046241986(1).
The assessee has raised three grounds of appeal challenging various additions made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings.
Today, when the matter has been called upon for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the matter requires fresh adjudication at
The learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee and observed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not a speaking order. We further observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has summarily affirmed the findings of the A.O. without assigning any independent reasons. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the ld.CIT(A) is duty bound to pass a speaking order in respect of each and every contention raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for examining afresh. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.