2015 (6) TMI 359 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment under sec. 144 - Held that - No doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Revenue Authorities, but we are also of view that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order in a routine, without discussing in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we remit the issues to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider each and every aspects of the issues involved in the Appeal and decide the same afresh, after passing a speaking order. - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by the Assessee based on separate Orders dated 7.12.2009, 25.3.1997 & 06.1.2010 by the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Asstt. Years 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1991-92.

Analysis:
The Assessee raised various grounds in the appeals, challenging the assessment under sec. 144 of the Income Tax Act, additions made by the Assessing Officer, and disallowances of expenditure. The Assessee contended that compliance was made through petitions, no money was received outside accounts, and disallowances were unjustified. The Assessee also argued against additions related to excise duty refund. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to non-cooperation of the Assessee.

The Tribunal noted the history of adjournments and non-appearance by the Assessee, both before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite multiple opportunities, the Assessee failed to attend hearings or provide explanations. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment without detailed discussion or merit-based analysis, leading to an erroneous and non-speaking order.

Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the need for speaking orders even in administrative decisions and the duty of appellate authorities to correct errors and provide adequate opportunity for hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing a detailed and speaking order after affording the Assessee a fair hearing.

Regarding penalty levied on the additions, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order for reconsideration along with the quantum appeals. All four appeals by the Assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of natural justice, detailed reasoning in orders, and the Assessee's right to a fair hearing. The decision aimed to ensure proper consideration of issues, correction of errors, and adherence to legal principles in the assessment process.