Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of alleged bogus purchases for both years. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) had not provided a speaking order and had failed to adjudicate the grounds raised.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the facts of the case, resulting in a non-speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order adjudicating the facts of the case; and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.12.2025 17.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee which are being disposed of through a single order for the sake of convenience.
1.1 Both these appeals arise from orders u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), both dated 30.05.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In both these cases the Ld. AO has made additions on account of alleged bogus purchases as under: i. For AY 2016-17 Rs.3,41,13,235/-; ii. For AY 2017-18 Rs.4,45,82,441/-.
1.2 The aggrieved assessee carried both these matters before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed in getting any relief on the basis of very brief and cryptic findings, which have been challenged by the assessee before the ITAT.
Before us, the Ld. AR pointed out that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not cared to give his own fact finding on the basis of submissions made by the assessee. It has been pointed out that the grounds raised in Form 35 have not been specifically adjudicated and only a generic order has been passed which is faulty, non-speaking and goes against the principles of natural justice. It was the submission by the Ld. AR that the factual aspects need to be thrashed out at first appellate stage again.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the arguments by Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the facts in any manner which could help us to appreciate the issues and thereafter adjudicate on the grounds before us. Accordingly, considering the ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee for both the years (challenging the non-speaking order) we hereby set aside both the impugned orders and remand the matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to consider all the evidences and documents available with the assessee and thereafter passing a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the two appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2025