Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI ASHWANI TANEJA, AM (A.Y:2010-11) STUP Consultants P. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income 1004-05, Raheja Chambers, 213, Tax Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Circle-3(3), Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 PAN No.AABCS1945E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri. Mahesh C Mathur, AR Revenue by .. Shri. B.S. Bist, DR Date of hearing .. 06-12-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 06-12-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-7, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-7/IT-628/DCIT-3(3)/12-13 dated 24-01-2014. The Assessment was framed by DCIT Circle-3(3), Mumbai for the AY 2010-11 vide order dated 25-02-2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there are three issues in this appeal, wherein the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of interest payment of Rs.42,2,395/-, addition on account of income declared under the head business that was treated as rental income, addition of un-reconciled figures appearing in Form No. 26AS amounting to Rs.1,63,58,098/- and refund of Rs.1,83,5,381/- as non-taxable shown as interest income under the head of other sources in the P&L account claimed as exempt from Income Tax. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground No.1 which reads as under: - The Order u/s 250 dated 24th January, 2014, passed by the commissioner “1. of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Mumbai, is bad in law, contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. The said Order is inconclusive and does not spell out appellant’s case and only gives direction to the AO to give appellant an opportunity to explain its case and take remedial measures and has allowed the disputed Demand to continue without any time limit.”
On these three issues the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A), wherein the grounds were adjudicated without passing a speaking
order. We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noticed that all the four issues in the order of CIT(A) is non-speaking and without any reasoning. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file for adjudicating the issue after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of assess is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-12-2016.