9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1184 - AT - Income TaxValidity of non speaking and unreasoned order by CIT(A) - Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and undisclosed income u/s 69A - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - We find that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is not a speaking and reasoned order and the same is issued without assigning any cogent reason. CIT(A) ought to have required to consider the entire matter in the light of the right perspective and then to pass a speaking and well reasoned order to decide the grievance of the assessee, which is totally missing in the in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Simply allowing the claims of the assessee without giving any cogent reason is not enough to pass a speaking order. Considering this aspect that the learned CIT(A) has not passed speaking or reasoned order and seen the order from any angle, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue challenging orders of CIT(A) for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. - Deletion of additions made by AO under sections 69C and 69A of the Income Tax Act. - Failure of assessee to explain transactions recorded in impounded documents. - Consideration of impounded material during survey proceedings. - Lack of speaking and reasoned order by CIT(A). Analysis: Appeal and Background: The Revenue filed appeals challenging orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals pertained to additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69C and 69A of the Income Tax Act based on impounded documents during a survey at the business premises of M/s. Tirupati Developers. Deletion of Additions: The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, citing reasons such as the inability of the assessee to explain transactions due to ill health and the lack of supporting evidence for the impounded documents. The CIT(A) considered judicial references and held that the additions were unjustified, leading to the deletion of the amounts added by the AO. Failure to Explain Transactions: The assessee failed to comply with notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, attributing it to ill health and the inability to discuss business transactions with the legal representative. This failure to explain transactions led to the AO making additions based on the impounded documents. Consideration of Impounded Material: The impounded documents found during the survey were crucial in determining the additions made by the AO. However, the CIT(A) found that the documents lacked sufficient evidence to support the income earned by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions under sections 69C and 69A. Lack of Speaking Order by CIT(A): The ITAT noted that the order passed by the CIT(A) lacked a speaking and reasoned approach. The ITAT emphasized the importance of a well-reasoned order to decide the grievance of the assessee. Due to the absence of cogent reasons in the CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT reversed the decision and allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years, reversing the orders of the CIT(A) due to the lack of a speaking and reasoned order. The ITAT found in favor of the Revenue, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the AO under sections 69C and 69A of the Income Tax Act.
|
