Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1741 - AT - Income TaxUnascertained liability towards the ‘Provision made for development expenses” - in the year under consideration for the first time ignoring the rule of consistency, the department has made such an addition by way of disallowance - HELD THAT:- Though, prima facie, the assessee appears to have an arguable case as canvassed before us. However, arguments have to be supported on facts and this is an area, which is required to be considered. Since the evidence and supporting facts have not been taken into consideration by the ld. CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. We are of the view that since facts were brought to the notice of the CIT(A) it was incumbent upon him to first address the facts and then proceed to consider the law applicable thereon. It is seen that the decision making process of the CIT(A) is flawed and open to the challenge of being perverse as he has straightway proceeded to decide the issue on the basis of legal precedence without first caring to marshal the facts. Legal precedent is available both for and against a general proposition of law and it is only when the facts are first addressed and the material facts are culled out that the conclusion can be supported by legal precedent. Considering the fact that it is a recurring issue for the assessee and the tax authorities, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law by first marshalling the facts of the instant case and thereafter consider the precedent available on those set of facts. - Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
|