2025 (1) TMI 1059 - AT - Income Tax

CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without addressing specific grounds raised by the assessee rendering the order as suffering from a mistake apparent from the record - Validity of assessment - reasons to believe - HELD THAT - When the assessee had specifically challenged the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 therefore CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the said issue by calling for the assessment records. Rather we find that though the assessee vide his rectification application had inter alia relied on the judgment of in the case of CIT (Central) Nagpur Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 (5) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT seeking disposal of the appeal vide a speaking order but the first appellate authority by dismissing the said application had allowed his said mistake to perpetuate. We are unable to concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had most arbitrarily dismissed the application filed by the assessee vide his order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 250. Accordingly we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), under Section 154 read with Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable given the alleged procedural deficiencies and lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Section 147 were valid, particularly in the absence of providing the assessee with the reasons for reopening the assessment.
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without addressing specific grounds raised by the assessee, thereby rendering the order as suffering from a mistake apparent from the record.
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order under Section 154 r.w.s. 250

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 154 of the Income-tax Act allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, while Section 250 outlines the appellate procedure.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to address specific grounds raised by the assessee, particularly regarding the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a detailed analysis or addressing the specific legal grounds raised by the assessee.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not fulfill the obligation to provide a reasoned order, which is a requirement under Section 250(6).
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both the assessee and the Revenue, ultimately finding merit in the assessee's contention that the order was non-speaking.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable due to procedural deficiencies and remanded the matter for re-adjudication.

Issue 2: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 deals with the reopening of assessments, requiring the A.O to have "reasons to believe" that income has escaped assessment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the A.O to provide the assessee with the reasons for reopening the assessment.
Key Evidence and Findings: The A.O initiated reassessment without providing the assessee with the "reasons to believe," which was a significant procedural lapse.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the failure to provide reasons invalidated the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's position but sided with the assessee's argument on procedural grounds.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were flawed due to the lack of communication of reasons to the assessee.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Rectification Application under Section 154

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 154 allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to recognize the apparent mistake in not addressing the specific grounds of appeal.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) dismissed the rectification application without adequately considering the procedural lapses in the original order.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) should have rectified the mistake by addressing the grounds of appeal.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal weighed the arguments from both sides and found the assessee's position more compelling.
Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal, acknowledging the procedural oversight.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "I find substance in the Ld. AR's claim that the CIT(Appeals) without dealing with the specific issues, based on which, the assessment order was assailed before him, had dismissed the appeal."
Core Principles Established: The necessity for appellate authorities to provide reasoned orders and adhere to procedural fairness, including communicating reasons for reassessment.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of all grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the duty of appellate authorities to provide detailed and reasoned orders, ensuring that the assessee's rights to a fair hearing are preserved.

← Previous Next →