2015 (10) TMI 1596 - AT - Income Tax

Anfractuous and redundant appeal declared by CIT(A) - levy of interest u/s 201(1A) - Held that - Order passed without hearing the assessee, is bad in law, we find force in the contention of the assessee that without specifying a date of hearing and informing the same by issue of notice, vitiates the impugned order. So we set aside the impugned order and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the question of law, fact and mixed question of law or fact, if raised by the assessee before him. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given adequate opportunity of being heard before he passes the de novo appellate order. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Lack of opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A)
2. Allegation of appeal being "anfractuous and redundant"
3. Failure of the Assessing Officer (TDS) to apply mind before passing order
4. Non-disposal of specific grounds of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)
5. Contention against the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A)
The Assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by passing the order without allowing any opportunity of hearing. It was highlighted that no notice of hearing was given, and the order was disposed of without hearing the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing that passing an order without hearing the assessee is against the law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to provide a fair hearing to the assessee before passing a new appellate order.

Issue 2: Allegation of appeal being "anfractuous and redundant"
The Ld. CIT(A) had termed the appeal filed by the assessee as "anfractuous and redundant." However, the Tribunal observed that such a characterization was inappropriate, especially when the Assessing Officer (TDS) had not applied his mind before passing the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal and pass a speaking order, addressing all legal and factual aspects raised by the assessee.

Issue 3: Failure of the Assessing Officer (TDS) to apply mind before passing order
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (TDS) had not properly considered the case before passing the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. It was highlighted that the order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to address specific grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to cancel the order passed by the Assessing Officer and provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case.

Issue 4: Non-disposal of specific grounds of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)
The Assessee raised concerns that the Ld. CIT(A) did not address the specific grounds of appeal submitted in the form No.35. The Tribunal acknowledged this lapse and instructed the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the case, ensuring that all grounds of appeal are adequately examined and addressed in the new appellate order.

Issue 5: Contention against the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act
The Assessee challenged the levy of interest amounting to Rs. 15,06,080 under section 201(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the contention and directed that the levy of interest should be canceled. This decision was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer's order lacked proper application of mind and did not provide a speaking order justifying the interest levy.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee and ensuring that all legal and factual aspects are adequately addressed in the appellate process.

← Previous Next →