9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 297 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 on account of cash deposit in bank account - CIT(A) in his aforesaid impugned order has not disposed off various grounds of appeal through a speaking order on merits - Held that - CIT(A) erred in dismissing Assessee s appeal on merits in a summary manner, without giving detailed reasons for his order, on various grounds of appeal before him. CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration and he failed in discharging the statutory obligation to state the reasons for his decision on each such points, which arose for determination in assessee s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A); and we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 of I.T. Act, for fresh disposal of appeal filed by the Assessee - Assessee s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 2. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of interest on housing loan. 4. Addition due to difference in receipts as per Form 26AS and return of income. 5. Non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and claimed that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction, making it invalid. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not address this ground in detail, which was a procedural lapse. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) should have provided a detailed analysis and decision on the jurisdictional issue. 2. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act: The AO made an addition of ?12,52,000 under Section 69 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee contended that the addition was made without proper appreciation of facts and without giving a proper opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without addressing the merits of this ground. The ITAT highlighted that the CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal on merits and provide detailed reasons for the decision. 3. Disallowance of Interest on Housing Loan: The AO disallowed ?17,64,241 claimed as interest on a housing loan under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, treating it as a wrong claim. The assessee argued that the disallowance was made without proper consideration of facts and without providing an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) again dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits. The ITAT reiterated that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasoned order on this issue. 4. Addition Due to Difference in Receipts: An addition of ?17,00,000 was made by the AO due to differences between the receipts as per Form 26AS and the return of income. The assessee claimed that this addition was made without proper inquiry and without giving a chance to explain the discrepancies. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing this ground on merits. The ITAT stressed that the CIT(A) should have given a detailed decision on this issue. 5. Non-Prosecution of Appeal by the Assessee: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, stating that the assessee did not appear for multiple hearings. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and was obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The ITAT cited relevant provisions from Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act, which mandate the CIT(A) to provide a reasoned order addressing all grounds of appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) dated 15/02/2016 and directed the CIT(A) to pass a denovo order in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) is required to address each ground of appeal on merits, provide detailed reasons for the decisions, and ensure compliance with the statutory obligations. The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 04/01/2019.
|
