M/S. MANILAL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal was fixed for hearing on 22.09.2016. A request letter for adjournment dated 06.09.2016 was received on 14.09.2016 from M. A. Parikh & co., Chartered Accountants but there was no body present in the court to [pursue this stay application. It is also seen that along with Appeal Memo on pages 25 & 26, only certified true copy of Letter of Authority was filed and the original thereof is not furnished along with the application for adjournment also. Hence, adjournment request was requested and the appeal was heard ex parte qua the assessee.

As per ground No. 1 (a) and (b), the grievance of the assessee is that the requirements of section 153 (c) are not fulfilled and therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that this issue was raised by the assessee before CIT (A) also as per Grounds No. 1 (a) & 1 (b) but the same were not decided by CIT (A) by saying that these grounds are general in nature and therefore, this issue has to go back to CIT (A) for his decision and as a consequence, the issue on merit is also required to be restored back for a fresh decision after a decision on the technical aspect because issue on merit has to be decided after deciding the technical aspect. In reply, he had nothing to say.

I have considered the facts of the case and in view of the facts noted above, I restore back the entire matter to CIT (A) with a direction that he should first decide the technical aspect i.e. the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153 (c) and if the assessee fails on this aspect, he should decide the issue on merit afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. No other ground on merit needs any adjudication at this stage.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.