The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) sent the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh hearing, as the CIT(A) had rejected the appeal in one paragraph without discussing the merits, which violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Pragya Thareja,appellant-assessee,challenged the order dated 30.03.2017 for the Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15 passed by the CIT(A) under section 143 of the Act.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Section 143 of the Act, outlines the process for assessing income tax returns. Section 143(1) allows for the processing of returns with corrections to errors or disallowing claims, without detailed scrutiny. Section 143(2) enables the department to issue a notice for further scrutiny, and Section 143(3) allows for a full assessment if necessary, including adding income or disallowing expenses. The section ensures the accurate evaluation of returns through these steps.
A single member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) after hearing both parties and reviewing the case files, found that the CIT(A) rejected the appeal in one paragraph without addressing the merits, which is against Section 250(6) of the Act.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Section 250(6) of the Act grants powers to appellate authorities, like the CIT(A), in appeals against assessment or reassessment orders. It requires the authority to clearly state the points of determination, decisions, and reasons for each. This ensures transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. The section allows the appellate authority to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, with its order being final, subject to Section 254 of the Act.
Therefore, the appellate tribunal decided to send the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, with the taxpayer responsible for presenting and proving the facts in three opportunities during the proceedings.
In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
