9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order passed by the CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial/quasi - judicial body/authority must pass reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it. The application of mind to the material facts and the arguments should manifest itself in the order - As CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on various issues raised before him it is fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the issues afresh - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.3509/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2012 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,35,450/- through Credit Card during the period under consideration, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] served a notice dated 21.11.2007 issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on the assesse. None responded to this notice. Even subsequent notice dated 07.12.2007 u/s 142(1) of the Act, went un-responded. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144of the Act with the addition of aforesaid amount of Rs..3,35,450/-, treating the amount from undisclosed sources. 3. On appeal, none appeared before the ld. CIT(A) despite notices sent through speed post on 21.01.2010, 30-09.2011, 12.12.2011, 14.02.2012 and 16.04.2012. Accordingly, in the absence of any written submissions and representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and gone through the facts of the case. As is apparent from the facts of the case, none of the notice dated 21.01.2010, 30- 09.2011, 12.12.2011, 14.02.2012 and 16.04.2012 issued by the ld. CIT(A) appear to have been served upon the assessee nor the ld. DR placed before us any material regarding service of any of these notices. In any case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even analyzing the issues or recording his specific findings on the said issues raised in the grounds of appeal before him. This approach of the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 A Co-ordinate Branch in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 74 ITD 339 (Ahd), in identical circumstances, observed as under: 3.We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made before us. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of s. 250(6), which provides that the appellate orders of the CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
