MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The assessee claimed delay due to cardiac issues. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained investment in house construction and enhanced contract receipts by rejecting the assessee's books of account.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on merits, having failed to adjudicate all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order adjudicating all grounds of appeal on merit?
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 133A, 143(2), 142(1), 145(3), 253(5), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कटक पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 178/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Narendra Kumar Bal Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Vs. Ward, Keonjhar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFFPB0578L Appearances: Assessee represented by : None (Adjournment appln. filed). Department represented by : S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : May 13th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : May 29th, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Bhubaneswar [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 28.03.2023,
Thus, section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and the decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. In the present case before us, the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the reasons after examining the records while disposing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has neither adjudicated upon various grounds of appeal nor has passed a reasoned order for arriving at the decision, as is required u/s 250(6) of the Act. We further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. Hence, the Bench was of the view, that considering the facts of the case and as no proper representation was made and the other additions have not been adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee should be granted another opportunity in the interest of justice to make the required submissions for the reliefs claimed. 7. After examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee on merit, by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules,
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata
