Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2013 2010 SLD 2013 (2010) 320 ITR 58
Madhya Pradesh High Court
I. T. APPEAL No. 7 OF 2008, AUGUST 3, 2009
DIPAK MISRA AND R. K. GUPTA, JJ.
Sumit Nema for the Appellant. Sanjay Lal for the
Respondent.

Rajesh Maheshwari

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate tribunal - Order of - Assessment year 1998-99 Where from order of Commissioner (Appeals) it was clear that he had dealt with case on merits ascribing reasons and, on basis of delineation of facts, dislodged order passed by Assessing Officer, Tribunal was not justified in remanding matter to Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed a speaking order [Remanded] Where from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) it was clear that he had dealt with the case on the merits ascribing reasons and, on the basis of delineation of the facts, dislodged the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner had not passed a speaking order : Held that, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. On a scrutiny of the same, it was noticeable that the Commissioner (Appeals) had ascribed reasons. The first appellate authority had dealt with the case on the merits ascribing reasons and, on the basis of delineation of the facts, dislodged the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, though had the benefit of paper book of more than hundred pages, referred to the grounds raised by the revenue in paragraph 2 and the ground urged by the assessee in paragraph 3 and, thereafter, noted certain contentions of both the sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a reasoned order while the Tribunal had passed a cryptic order. In view of the decision in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 433 (Bom.), the matter was to be remanded to the Tribunal as it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to adjudicate the lis on merits. Sumit Nema for the Appellant. Sanjay Lal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. - The present appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), involves the following substantial question of law : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has committed illegality by failing to consider all material facts and evidence brought on record and further failed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492