9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 425/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) - - - Dated:- 19-4-2017 - Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava AND Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra, JJ. Assessee by: Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by: Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR ORDER Anadee Nath Misshra, (A). This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2016 of CIT(A)-4, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. Grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on facts and in law in disposing off the appeal ex-parte, despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. (B). The assessee filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 90,61,570/-. The assessment order dated 18.02.2015 was passed by Assessing Officer (in short AO ) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short Act ) wherein the following additions were made:- (a) Disallowance amounting to ₹ 1,61,310/- u/s 14A of the Act; (b) Additions of ₹ 45,37,865/- on account of survey. (B.1). The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 15.03.2016, dismissed the assessee s appeal without giving finding on merits of additions made by the AO. The relevant portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the law and the Ld. CIT(A) was required to decide the appeal on merits even when he passed an ex-parte order. The counsel for the assessee pleaded that in the absence of appeal being decided by Ld.CIT(A) on merit, the order of Ld.CIT(A) was bad in law and was liable to be set aside. He drew our attention to the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the cases of Gaurav Goel vs ITO, Ward-1(2) [ITA No.605/Del/2012 dated 09.04.2012] and M/s Haryana Liquor Company vs ACIT (ITA No.1852/Del/2012 dated 25.06.2012) and pleaded that the matter should be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order on merit. Ld. Departmental Representative (in short DR ) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). (C). We have heard bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter back on his file with the direction to re-decide the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee well as to the Assessing Officer and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. (C.1). In the case of M/s Haryana Liquor Company vs ACIT (supra) held by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi as under:- A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the Id. 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 min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. Sec. 250(6) expressly embodies the principles of natural justice and such a provision is clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
