What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be vague and non-speaking, lacking reference to relevant facts. Consequently, the order was set aside for not fulfilling the statutory remit.

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and sustained additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground challenging the notice under section 143(2), stating it was served within time and the assessee participated without objection.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering relevant facts and whether the assumption of jurisdiction was valid.

Mohan Traders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA

Hearing: 16.08.2021Pronounced: 09.09.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 22.04.2019 of CIT(A)-6, Delhi pertaining to 2014-15 assessment year is assailed via the grounds raises on the assumption of jurisdiction and on the merits of the addition sustained.

At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee, however, considering the material available on record it was noticed that the hearing could proceed. Attention of the Counsel and the Sr. DR was invited to ground No.2 raised in the appeal and the finding arrived at in para 4.1.1. It was seen that the finding arrived at was vague and non speaking. In the circumstances since the facts need to be brought on record

Mohan Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the issues necessarily it was considered needed to be restored back.

Considering the facts and the record the Ld. AR Mr Pranshu Singhal, CA and agreed to withdraw the adjournment application moved. The oral request for withdrawal of the adjournment moved was granted.

Both the parties were heard.

In the facts of present case, it is seen that the assessee had challenged that the assumption of jurisdiction was time barred. The said issues has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) holding as under:

“4.4 Ground of appeal No.4 challenges the notice under section 143(2). 4.4.1 From the assessment order in that notice was served within time required under section 143(2). It is also seen that the assessee participated in the scrutiny proceedings and no objections were raised. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied)

5. A perusal of the above shows that no facts are referred to by the First Appellate Authority which would demonstrate that the conclusion drawn was in accordance with law. An order which is subject to appeal must necessarily set out the relevant facts taken into consideration by the deciding Authority for arriving at the conclusion. A conclusion dehors the relevant facts is incapable of being considered. No finding on its correctness or otherwise can be given.

The order is thus vitiated and hold to be not in accordance with law. The statutory remit as set out in sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act is held to be not fulfilled. The absence of discussion on relevant facts and consequent reasons makes the conclusion drawn open to the challenge of being arbitrary and whimsical. Accordingly, on account of this deficiency itself it is Page 2 of 3

Mohan Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO set aside directing the Ld. CIT(A) to specifically set out the necessary details as to the date and the address at which the notice was stated to have been issued and considered to be within the statutory time limits. It is clarified that the impugned order is set aside in toto. After deciding the jurisdiction issue if need to be the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh on merits. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties Webex.

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

Order pronounced on 09th September, 2021

MOHAN TRADERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments