SHRI RIYAZULHAQ F PATHAN,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

In the absence of any representation and adjournment application from the appellant assessee, with the able assistance of learned departmental representative Mr N Shrikanth [‘DR’ in short] we deem fit to proceed to hear the matter ex-parte on merits u/r 24 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 [‘ITAT-Rules’ in short].

After hearing to Ld. DR, perused the case record. Here in the extant case we observed that, consequent to survey action u/s 133A of the Act dt. 04/03/2015 the assessee e-filed his return of income on 13/10/2016 declaring taxable income of ₹75,56,460/- including therein the excess cash & excess stock found in an action u/s 133A of the Act. Subjecting the case to scrutiny, the Ld. AO framed an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by bringing to tax an excess cash of ₹6,70,475/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 155BBE and excess stock of ₹68,35,590/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Challenging the application of provisions of section 115BBE the assessee carried the matter before first appellate authority, which Ld. CIT(A) dismissed without a well-reasoned speaking order.

It shall be purposive to state that, section 250(6) of the Act, mandates the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal of the assessee in writing by stating (i) points for determination, (ii) decision thereon and (iii) the reason for the decision. That is to say, an order passed without dealing each issue under challenge separately in aforestated manner renders the adjudication non-est.

In the present case, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is conspicuous by absence of any discussion with regard to the Ground of Appeal raised before him, point of determination, the decision thereon and reason for such decision. Even in the absence of the explanation vis- à-vis submission, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeal of the assessee in the manner required in Section 250(6) of the Act, which in the present case has not been complied with. We find that, in a similar situation the Co-ordinate Pune bench in ‘Uttamkumar C. Wagh Vs DCIT’ (ITA No. 150/PN/2012) and further in ‘Ambadas Vishwanath Mete Vs JCIT’ (ITA No. 555/PN/2013) has set-aside the order of first appellate authority and remanded the matter back for adjudication and passing speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

We therefore, following the judicial discipline we set- aside the impugned order, which is non-speaking on the merits of the dispute, and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-nova adjudication by a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act and other applicable provisions of law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.