Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2009-10, alleging that 111 pages of written submissions and enclosures submitted on 12/06/2022 were not considered by the CIT(A) during the disposal of the appeal. The assessee prayed for the issues to be restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
Held
The tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the assessee's written submissions and enclosures. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, with directions to consider the submissions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's detailed written submissions and enclosures, necessitating a readjudication of the appeal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Sri Ashish Kumar Shekhar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna in Appeal No. CIT(A), Hazaribag/10021/2018-19 dated 30/03/2023 for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Shri Ashish Kumar Shekhar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had filed a written submission before the ld. CIT(A) on 12/06/2022 consisting of 111 pages. It was a submission that the said written submissions and the enclosures thereto was not considered by the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee. It was the prayer that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after considering the written submissions as filed by the assessee alongwith the enclosures thereto.
In reply, the ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objections.