Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding diversion of income due to amalgamation and an issue related to TDS credit, which were linked to the amalgamation scheme. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate these issues on merits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the additional ground was not adjudicated with a speaking order and the TDS issue was not specifically adjudicated. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both issues to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the additional ground and TDS issue raised by the assessee, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for proper adjudication.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had raised an additional ground in regard to the issue of diversion of income pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation. It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) has admitted the said additional ground in page 29 & 30 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was submission that in para 2 the Ld.CIT(A) has admitted the additional ground and in para 3 he holds that the ground is allowed. However, the said ground no.3 which has been allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) is in regard to the regular appeal of the assessee and not the additional ground. It was submission that the additional ground has not been adjudicate on merits at all. It was submission that the second issue is in regard to the TDS. The issue of TDS is linked to the issue of the diversion of income pursuant to the scheme of the amalgamation. The TDS credit has not been granted to the assessee in the computation though it was shown the in the earlier order’s computation. It was submission that the issue may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to give a finding on the two issues.
In reply, the Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case as also the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the additional ground which has been raised by the assessee has not been adjudicated with a speaking order. Similarly, the issue of the TDS had also not been specifically adjudicated but has only been set aside to the AO. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for passing a speaking order. If the Ld.CIT(A) desires to get a computation to be redone by the Ld.AO, then remand proceeding is available to the Ld.CIT(A) to call for the details from the AO. With these directions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication.