2017 (8) TMI 1715 - HC - Income Tax

ITAT justification in remanding matter back to CIT(A) - Before proceeding with the matter, we suggested both the side that documents are available in the tribunal and it was the duty of the tribunal to consider the same. In that view of the matter, the order of the tribunal remanding back the matter to the authority is required to be quashed and set aside to which they agreed. HELD THAT - We have not examined the matter on merits but in view of the fact that factual matrix is to be examined by the tribunal, we remit back the matter to the tribunal with the specific directions that the documents which are already on record and if either side make an application under Rule 29, if so desires, after following the procedure, will hear the matter afresh. We make it clear that the tribunal will not influenced effected by the order of this court and will appreciate the facts independently and after hearing the parties to decide the matters afresh after following the procedure. It is made clear that the tribunal will consider all the issues which are raised before it.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remand of the matter by ITAT to CIT(A) without proposal by AO/Departmental Representative.
2. Justification of ITAT's decision to remand the matter back to CIT(A) to verify facts already considered.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the issue of remand by the ITAT to the CIT(A) without any proposal from the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Departmental Representative. The court noted that common questions of law and facts were involved in the appeals. The court suggested that the documents available in the tribunal should have been considered, indicating that the tribunal's decision to remand the matter was not appropriate. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the tribunal's order of remand, as agreed by both parties.

2. Addressing the justification of the ITAT's decision to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to verify facts that were already the basis of its decision, the High Court clarified that it had not examined the matter on merits. The court emphasized that the factual matrix needed examination by the tribunal. Therefore, the court remitted the matter back to the tribunal with specific directions. The tribunal was instructed to consider the documents already on record and to entertain applications under Rule 29 if either party desired, ensuring a fresh hearing after following due procedure.

3. The High Court further directed the tribunal to independently assess the facts, without being influenced by the court's order. The tribunal was instructed to hear the parties, consider all raised issues, and decide the matters afresh following the proper procedure. The court made it explicit that the tribunal's decision should be based on a comprehensive review of all aspects brought before it, ensuring a fair and thorough consideration of the case.

4. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the aforementioned terms, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of the matter by the tribunal, taking into account all relevant documents and issues, and ensuring a fair and unbiased decision-making process.