ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 958/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to first decide the legal aspect of the assessment order being void in a speaking and reasoned manner.

What were the facts?

The assessee's primary contention was that the assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existent company, rendering it void. The CIT(A)'s order on this issue was found to be cryptic and lacking in detail.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company is void and an incurable defect. The need for a speaking and reasoned order from the CIT(A) on this preliminary legal issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate
Hearing: 29.11.2017Pronounced: 30.11.2017

O R D E R PER BENCH: These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue and these are directed against the order of CIT (A) – 4, Bangalore dated 24.02.2016 for A. Y. 2012 – 13.

& 958/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 3 2. At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that one of the grounds raised by the assessee is this that the assessment order passed in the name of nonexistent company is void and it is an incurable defect in the eyes of law. At this juncture, the bench wanted to know the finding of CIT (A) on this issue. He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has decided this issue as per Para 9.1 of his order. The bench observed that this order of CIT (A) in Para 9.1 of his order is very cryptic because from the same, it is not coming out as to what are the objections of the assessee and what is the finding of CIT (A) in respect of the objections and therefore, the matter has to go back to his file for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order and hence, the issue on merit in both these appeals need no adjudication at the present stage because the issue on merit has to be decided after decision on legal aspect.

3.

In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the entire matter back to his file for a fresh decision . We direct him to first decide the legal aspect afresh by way of a speaking and reasoned order. If the assessee succeeds on this aspect, than nothing is left to be decided and if the assessee fails, than the issue on merit should be decided afresh. Needless to say, he should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →