Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:
Both these appeals by assessee are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata in appeal nos. 202 & 203/XXSII/10-11/49(3)/Kol both dated 05.12.2012. Assessments was framed by ITO, Ward-49(3), Kolkata and DCIT, Circle-49, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2008-09 vide their separate orders dated 30.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 respectively.
At the outset, for both the appeals, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the orders of CIT(A) are non-speaking order and he has not adjudicated the issues. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the findings of CIT(A) and in both the orders the findings are exactly identically worded and common. Hence, we reproduce the relevant portion of the order of CIT(A) from which is as under: “I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and the impugned assessment order. It is observed that the various disallowances contested by the appellant in the present appeal were made by the AO after detailed examination of undisclosed account and the details furnished/produced by the appellant before him. As already discussed above, th4e appellant has failed to offer any explanation for submissions in support of the grounds raised in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided.
In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon’ble court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the AO unless it is shown that the judgment of the AO was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the AO was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the AO.” From the above findings, it is clear that the order of CIT(A) is a non-speaking one and even issues raised before him are not adjudicated.
We have gone through the grounds raised
by both the assessees and seen that none of the grounds have adjudicated by CIT(A) in his appellate order. We also find that the orders of CIT(A) are cryptic one and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the orders by CIT(A). 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. Hence, we quash the orders of CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to his file for fresh adjudication with the above direction. We order accordingly. The appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2015 Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 15th October, 2015 Jd. Sr. P.S Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT –Shri Prabir Chandra Chowdhury, 2/1, Rifle Range Road,
1. Belghoria, Kolkata-700056. Smt. Puspita Chowdhury, 62/1/E, Feeder Road, Belghoria, Kolkata- 700056. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-49, Kolkata. & ITO, Wd-49(3), Kolkata. 2 The CIT(A), Kolkata 3.
4. CIT Kolkata