The Chennai Bench Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for a fresh review, citing procedural deficiencies in the assessment order dated 16.03.2024 for the assessment year ( AY ) 2017-18.
G.Sekar,the appellant-assessee,challenged an order issued by the CIT(A) dated 16.03.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18, disputing the determination of his taxable income at Rs. 8,17,080, significantly higher than the returned income of Rs. 2,17,080.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
The assessee raised legal and procedural objections, questioning the validity of the assessment order under Sections 129 and 143(2) of the Act. He also contended that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) lacked authority to unilaterally convert the case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny without obtaining necessary approval from a supervisory officer. The assessee further asserted that the AO’s assessment added to the income based on errors that disregarded specific procedural requirements and facts.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s assessment, attributing the decision to the assessee’s alleged failure to submit requested documents and details. The CIT(A) contended that the assessee missed several opportunities to provide supporting information, which resulted in the income being treated as taxable.
However, the assessee argued that he had provided relevant records, including books of accounts, ledgers, and supporting documentation, and requested reconsideration based on these materials. He asserted that any failure in submission was due to procedural misunderstandings rather than non-compliance.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
Upon review, the tribunal identified substantial deficiencies in the CIT(A)’s order. Notably, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) issued a “non-speaking order,” which did not detail the sequence or nature of the opportunities provided to the assessee to make his submissions and observed that the CIT(A) also failed to address significant issues raised by the assessee, such as the legality of converting the scrutiny type without proper authorization and the procedural validity under the cited sections.
Additionally, the appellate tribunal noted discrepancies in the CIT(A)’s statement that the assessee did not make written submissions, despite apparent records of facts and statements.
The two member bench comprising Aby T Varkey ( Judicial Member ) and Amitabh Shukla ( Accountant Member ) remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority for fresh evaluation, allowing the appellant to submit necessary documents and comply with notices.
Consequently, the appeal 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
