The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside the consolidated order and remanded four appeals back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and failure to state point of determination as required under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant, Suhas Maruti Dhankude, was subjected to assessment proceedings following a search action on Baburao D. Chandere and his family members under Section 132 of the Act on 19.12.2017. The search covered the residential premises, and a statement was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Dhankude, identified as a non-filer, had not filed income tax returns for the years under consideration.
Subsequently, the case was centralised and transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Pune. The assessments were initiated under Section 153C of the Act, and returns were filed declaring total income of Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. For AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, returns declared total income of Rs.2,93,294/- and Rs.2,96,750/-, respectively.
The assessee, represented by U.K. Chavan, contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the legal grounds challenging the invocation of Section 153C jurisdiction and the ex-parte additions made in violation of the principles of natural justice without adjudicating them. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to provide a speaking order as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Act, thereby seeking remand for re-adjudication.
Umashankar Prasad, representing the revenue, acknowledged the facts but did not oppose the assessee’s request for remand, confirming that the CIT(A) had dismissed the legal grounds as general in nature and do not require separate adjudication.
The ITAT bench, comprising G. D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member, and Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member, observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the legal grounds without adjudicating them on merits, thus failing to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal emphasised that the CIT(A) is obligated to make necessary inquiries, deal with each issue on merits, and decide grievances with a well-reasoned order.
Citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad, the ITAT reiterated that any statutory provision must be followed precisely as prescribed. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not record independent findings while adjudicating the grounds on merits. The ITAT set aside the impugned consolidated order and remanded the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) has been directed to pass assessment year-wise separate speaking orders in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
