Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, dated 31.08.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.
Today, the Stay Petition is listed for hearing. After hearing the Ld. representative for the assessee Shri Y. Sridhar, this Tribunal finds that the CIT(Appeals) has not passed a speaking order.
Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted back to the file of CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration. Accordingly, by consent of both the parties, the appeal of the assessee was taken up for hearing.
Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) is expected to pass a speaking order irrespective of the fact whether the assessee appeared before him or not. In this case, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) has not passed a speaking order on the ground that the assessee has not appeared before him. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer is not justified. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee has to file additional evidence in this case to support the claim. According to the Ld. representative, it is proper for the Assessing Officer to re-examine the same rather than the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. very fairly submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has not disposed of the assessee’s appeal on merit, therefore, the matter needs to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. also fairly submitted that since the assessee claims that he is going to file additional evidence, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to re-examine the same.
We have considered the submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that there is no further submission in support of the stand taken by the assessee. In fact, at para 4.1 of the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals), he observed as follows:-
“4.1 In the absence of any further submission in support of its stand by the appellant, the case is finalised on merits. No interference in A.O.’s order is called for and therefore, the A.O.’s order is confirmed.”
Apart from this, there is no discussion with regard to grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) being the first appellate authority in hierarchy and having power conterminous with that of the Assessing Officer, he is expected to discuss the matter on the basis of the material available on record. If the assessee has not appeared before him, it is for the CIT(Appeals) to call for records from the Assessing Officer and re-appreciate the same and dispose of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee by a speaking order.
Unfortunately, such an exercise was not done by the CIT(Appeals).
Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals). Since the assessee claims before this Tribunal that he is going to file additional evidence, as rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. representative for the assessee, the Assessing Officer being the original authority is the right person to consider the same at first instance. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the same in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. However, the Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on16thNovember, 2018at Chennai.