TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs reconsideration by ITAT, stresses clarity in remand orders, restores cases for comprehensive hearing.</h1> <h3>M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. and others Versus The Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Large Tax Payer Unit and others</h3> M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. and others Versus The Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Large Tax Payer Unit and ... Issues Involved:1. Exercise of Power of Remand by ITAT2. Remand without New Materials3. Specific Directions for Remand4. Non-Recording of Findings on Fresh Material5. Unconsidered Issues by TribunalIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exercise of Power of Remand by ITATThe primary issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) exercised its power of remand judiciously and in accordance with law. The court found that the ITAT had failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The Tribunal remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer (AO) without specifying any fresh materials that necessitated such a remand. The court emphasized that remand should not be exercised routinely but sparingly and only when facts warrant such action.2. Remand without New MaterialsThe ITAT remanded the matters back to the AO even though no new materials had been presented. Both the assessees and the Revenue agreed that all materials were already before the lower authorities. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision to remand was based on an incorrect assumption that fresh materials were presented. The court highlighted that the Tribunal should have considered the issues on merits based on the existing materials.3. Specific Directions for RemandThe Tribunal remanded the matters without giving specific directions. The court criticized this approach, stating that the Tribunal should have provided clear instructions on what needed to be reconsidered by the AO. The lack of specific directions rendered the remand order ineffective and unjustified.4. Non-Recording of Findings on Fresh MaterialThe ITAT failed to record a finding on what fresh materials were produced before it. The court pointed out that the Tribunal's order did not mention any new documents that necessitated a remand. The Tribunal's view that the request of the assessees was more in the nature of a review was rejected by the court, as there was an apparent error on the face of the record.5. Unconsidered Issues by TribunalCertain issues raised by the assessees and the Revenue were left unconsidered by the Tribunal. The court directed the ITAT to address all issues raised by both parties comprehensively. This included considering the relevance of the retrospective amendment to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act after the Vodafone case.Conclusion:The court set aside the ITAT's order remanding the matters back to the AO. It directed the ITAT to reconsider the cases on merits based on the materials already available and the effect of the amended provisions. The court emphasized that the Tribunal should act with greater circumspection and provide clear directions when ordering a remand. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, and the matters were restored to the files of the ITAT for a full-fledged hearing on all issues raised.
TaxTMI 