9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1161 - AT - Income TaxValidity of CIT(A) s order - Held that - There is no longer any debate on the aspect that there was no independent reasoning given by the CIT(A) in the impugned order as he has merely recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee. The impugned order is not in consonance with the Statutory requirement of setting out reasons for coming to the conclusion as the same are found missing. Section 250(6) specifically mandates the said requirement. It is seen that there is nothing in the impugned order to throw light on the aspect as to what reasons prevailed in the mind of the Ld. CIT(A) to grant relief. In the absence of the same the correctness of the order cannot be considered. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
- Challenge to the consolidated order dated 31.08.2010 of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi pertaining to multiple Assessment Years. - Remittance of the issue of cash loans received by the assessee and interest back to ITAT by Hon'ble High Court. - Lack of specific finding in the impugned order. - Need for a speaking order by CIT(A). - Consideration of remand report. - Grant of relief by CIT(A) and subsequent challenges. Issue 1: Challenge to Consolidated Order The seven appeals filed by the department were decided by a consolidated order dated 31.08.2010 of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi, covering multiple Assessment Years. The departmental appeals were further decided by the Co-ordinate Bench on 17.06.2011. The Revenue challenged this decision in appeal u/s 260A before the Hon'ble High Court, which remitted the issue of cash loans received by the assessee and interest back to the ITAT. Issue 2: Remittance of Cash Loans Issue The Hon'ble High Court remitted the issue of cash loans received by the assessee and the interest thereon back to the ITAT. Both parties agreed that this issue was agitated by the Revenue in each of the years under consideration. The lack of a specific finding in the impugned order led to the remittance of the issue by the High Court. Issue 3: Lack of Specific Finding The Ld. CIT DR argued that the impugned order lacked a specific finding and should be set aside, urging for the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The absence of a specific finding in the impugned order was highlighted as a reason for remitting the issue back to the ITAT by the Hon'ble High Court. Issue 4: Need for a Speaking Order The need for a speaking order by the CIT(A) was emphasized during the proceedings. The CIT(A) was required to provide detailed reasoning for granting relief to the assessee, which was deemed essential for the correctness of the order. The absence of independent reasoning in the impugned order necessitated the remittance of the issue for a speaking order. Issue 5: Consideration of Remand Report The consideration of the remand report was a crucial aspect discussed during the proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the remand reports and ensuring that the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) was sound and justified. The failure to delve into the remand reports by the Tribunal was a key factor leading to the remittance of the matter. Issue 6: Grant of Relief and Subsequent Challenges The relief granted by the CIT(A) was confirmed by the ITAT initially, but subsequent challenges by the Revenue led to the matter being remitted back to the ITAT by the Hon'ble High Court. The necessity for a detailed and reasoned decision by the CIT(A) was underscored, emphasizing the importance of addressing all arguments and providing a sound basis for granting relief. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the various issues involved, including the challenge to the consolidated order, the remittance of the cash loans issue, the lack of specific findings, the requirement for a speaking order, the consideration of the remand report, and the grant of relief with subsequent challenges. Each issue was thoroughly discussed during the proceedings, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning and adherence to statutory requirements in arriving at decisions related to tax matters.
|
