9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 940 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - proof of AO's order to be erroneous or prejudicial - As decided in 2017 (12) TMI 1349 - ITAT KOLKATA Principal CIT passed the impugned order u/s 263 without giving any finding or conclusion as to how the order of the Ao was erroneous on merits in respect of the issue raised in the notice issued u/s 263 and set aside the same on the ground of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer without even putting the assessee on notice - HELD THAT - If that be the case, it ought to have decided the question itself or remanded the matter back. It has done neither. It has simply allowed the appeal. We are minded to remand the matter to the tribunal for de novo consideration. This is our tentative view subject to hearing the respondent. The advocate-on-record for the appellant is directed to give notice to the respondent of this appeal along with the gist of this order. The appeal is formally admitted. Let the appeal appear for orders on 22nd July, 2019.
Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal 2. Validity of order under Section 263 3. Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer 4. Applicability of previous tribunal decision 5. Remand of the matter for de novo consideration 1. Delay in filing appeal: The High Court noted the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it after sufficient cause was shown. The department was directed to register the appeal immediately, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed. 2. Validity of order under Section 263: The impugned order under Section 263 by the Principal CIT was challenged for not providing a finding on how the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous on merits. The tribunal held that lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer without putting the assessee on notice rendered the order liable to be quashed. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the decision in a previous case. 3. Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer: The tribunal found fault with the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 for not conducting a proper enquiry and setting aside the order without giving a conclusion on the merits of the issue raised in the notice. This lack of enquiry was a crucial factor in the decision to quash the order. 4. Applicability of previous tribunal decision: The tribunal applied the decision of a Coordinate Bench in a prior case to the present situation, stating that the impugned order under Section 263 was liable to be quashed based on the principles established in the previous ruling. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in line with this interpretation. 5. Remand of the matter for de novo consideration: The High Court expressed a tentative view to remand the matter back to the tribunal for de novo consideration, as it observed that the tribunal had not decided the question itself or remanded the matter previously. The Court directed the advocate-on-record to notify the respondent of this appeal and the intent to remand the matter for further consideration. In conclusion, the High Court addressed the delay in filing the appeal, scrutinized the validity of the order under Section 263, highlighted the lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, discussed the applicability of a previous tribunal decision, and considered remanding the matter for de novo consideration. The decision to remand the matter was based on the Court's observation that the tribunal had not adequately addressed the issues raised in the appeal, necessitating further examination.
|
