Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Maharashtra State Co-op Agri Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rural Multipurpose Dev. Bank 1(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-20 Ltd. 15A, Morvi Lane, Chowpathy, Mumbai-400 007 .. Appellant Respondent PAN No. AAAAM9669E Assessee by .. Shri Raturaj H Gurjar, AR Revenue by .. Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR Date of hearing .. 14-03-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 14-03-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
These four appeal by the assessee are arising out of the orders of CIT(A)- 7, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-7/IT-499,505,500&340/12-13 vide same dated 04-03-2017. The Assessments were framed by ACIT Circle-1(3), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 vide different order dated 19-12-2008, 31-10-2006 & 20-12-2007 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee first of all stated that the order of CIT(A) in all the four assessment years is a non-speaking order and he has not adjudicated the issues on merits. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that for this assessee has raised identically worded grounds regarding passing a non-speaking orders in these AYs and the ground as raised in AY 2001-02 reads as under: - ,5634,5635 &5636/Mum/2013 Maharashtra State Co-op Agri. Rural Multipurpose Dev. Bank Ltd.
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in law and in facts in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act and dismissing several grounds of appeal without passing speaking order”
Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the finds of CIT(A) on merits, which reads as under: - “4.3 I have considered the AO’s order as well as the appellant’s submission. Having considered both, I find that the A.O was completely justified and correct in this action for making disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts as well disallowance of provision for interest on special bad and doubtful debts reserve fund. Even the appellant has not adduced any valid explanation or evidence in support of his contention. Having considered the AO’s order as well as the appellant’s submission, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the appellant. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.”
From the above finds he argued that issue need reconsideration by CIT(A) and he should be asked to pass a speaking order. Further, he took us through the issue of reopening adjudicated by him, which reads as under: - “6.4 I have considered the AO’s order as well as the appellant’s submission. Having considered both, I do not find any merits in the arguments of the appellant. After considering the reasons recorded by the AO for opening of assessment, I am in the agreement with the AO that the appellant’s income has escaped the assessment in the year under consideration. Hence, taking note of all the facts available on record, I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that the AO was completely justified and correct in reopening the assessment in the ,5634,5635 &5636/Mum/2013 Maharashtra State Co-op Agri. Rural Multipurpose Dev. Bank Ltd. appellant’s case. Accordingly, appellant’s these grounds of appeal are dismissed.”
4. In view of the above facts it is clear that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue and not at all considered the facts produced before him. Hence, we are of the view that the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after considering the facts of the case on each of the issue. Needless to say that CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
5. Similar are facts and circumstances in other years also hence, taking consistent view we set aside the orders of CIT(A) in those years also and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for passing a speaking order after considering the facts of the case on each of the issue. 6. In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-03-2017.