Court : INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief : We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act are in the nature of judicial discretion to the Appellate Authority and emphasizing that the order disposing of the appeal shall be a speaking order. The order shall not cryptic but shall be selfexplanatory
Citation : Mutual Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCK0087C)(Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,Circle-1, Hooghly (Respondent)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
[Before Shri Pramod Kumar, AM & Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
I.T.A No. 764/Kol/2012
Assessment Year: 2007-08
Mutual Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(PAN: AACCK0087C)
(Appellant)
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
Circle-1, Hooghly
(Respondent)
Date of hearing: 11.09.2012
Date of pronouncement: 11.09.2012
For the Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal
For the Respondent: Shri P. K. Chakraborty
ORDER
Per Bench:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata in Appeal No. 986/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/ACIT Cir-1/Hgly/07-08 dated 02.02.2012. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2007-08 vide his order dated 31.12.2009.
2. At the out set it is noticed that the first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limini without consideration of the subject issues on merit. For this, assessee has raised following ground no. 1:
“1. Against ex parte dismissal of appeal:
a) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for alleged non-pursuing of the appeal.
b) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal in limine without consideration of the subject issues on merit.”
3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the orders of the authorities below.
We find that the order of CIT(A) is ex parte and even non-speaking order, which is as under:
“Nobody attended in response to fixation of hearing on 13.10.11, 02.12.11 & 01.02.2012.
It appears the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and filing the submissions in spite of giving sufficient opportunities. Keeping in view of the judgment of (1991) 38 ITD 320 Delhi, in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”
After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act are in the nature of judicial discretion to the Appellate Authority and emphasizing that the order disposing of the appeal shall be a speaking order. The order shall not cryptic but shall be selfexplanatory.
Hence, We set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Order pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Pramod Kumar) (Mahavir Singh)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 11th September, 2012
Jd.(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. APPELLANT – Mutual Technologies Pvt. Ltd. C/o Shri Sawar Dhanania, 46B, Shakespeare Sarani (1st floor), Kolkata-700 017.
2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly
3. The CIT(A), Kolkata
4. CIT Kolkata
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
True Copy,
By order,
Asstt. Registrar.
