TIRUPATI AGENCY,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DHULE, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without providing points for determination and detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,12,473/- as penal in nature and depreciation of Rs. 81,664/-. The revenue argued that the assessee had not provided any explanation to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act in disposing of the appeal. Whether the disallowance and depreciation claim were correctly treated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 26.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.38/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Tirupati Agency, The Income Tax Officer, 3302/3, Sahariya Ward – 2, Aaykar Bhavan, Apartment, Lane No.2, Opp. MSEB, Sakri Road, DHULE – 424 001 vs. Dhule – 424 001 PAN AABFT3451B Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sarang Gudhate For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arise against Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore, Mysore's Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1057874971(1), dated 10.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties through their learned representatives that both the lower authorities has disallowed a sum of Rs.2,12,473/- treating the same as penal in nature and depreciation of of Rs.81,664/-. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the assessee

2 ITA.No.38/PUN./2024 had not filed any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings.

3.

It is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring him to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →