MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 178/CTK/2025Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 133A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 145(3),Section 253(5),Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: May 29th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

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,

6.

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,

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →