SRI RAJESH PRADHAN,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WD-1(3), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1385/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 February 2016AY 2008-091 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed in its duty to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's facts. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was quashed and the appeal was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A) which was found to be cryptic and non-speaking. The CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case or provided any reasons for its decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order and properly adjudicated the appeal. The adequacy of the CIT(A)'s order in addressing the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

Hearing: 22.02.2016Pronounced: 22.02.2016

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A), Jalpaiguri vide Appeal No. 30/Jal/CIT(A)/Jal/2013-14 dated 18.09.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-1(3), Jalpaiguri u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 22.03.2013. 2. At the time of hearing, I have gone through the order of CIT(A) and seen that the order passed by him is cryptic and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in his order. The duty of the CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Since this was absent in their order, I quash the same and remit the appeal back to his file for fresh adjudication with the above direction. I order accordingly. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member Dated : 22nd February, 2016 Jd. Sr. P.S Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Shri Rajesh Pradhan, Raja Tea Estate, Post Malbazar, District Jalpaiguri, Pin- 735221. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(3), Jalpaiguri.

3.

CIT(A) , Jalpaiguri

4.

CIT , Jalpaiguri

5.

DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /, By order, Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →