2019 (5) TMI 778 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs fresh consideration by CIT(A) for penalty assessment.

M/s AEZ INFRATECH P. LTD. C/O BGJC AND ASSOCIATES Versus DCIT, CIRCLE 49 (1), NEW DELHI

The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the Assessee for statistical purposes and directed a fresh consideration of the issues by the Ld. CIT(A) to ... Non speaking order of CIT-A - dismissal of appeal of assessee - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - no assessment proceedings completed u/s 201/201(1A) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by upholding the action of the AO. It is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. In this regard, we draw support from M/S SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) , LUCKNOW VERSUS CIT, CENTRAL-I & ANR [2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”. We remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to discuss each and every aspects of the issues involved in the Appeal and decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after considering all the evidences/documents. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. Issues involved:- Failure to pass a speaking order by Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi.- Error in sustaining penalty demand without completing assessment proceedings under section 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- Erroneous order by Ld. CIT(A), Appeals-13, New Delhi.- Need for a speaking order even in administrative decisions.Analysis:Issue 1: Failure to pass a speaking orderThe Assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and requested the issues to be sent back for a fresh decision. The Tribunal agreed, citing the necessity of a speaking order, as emphasized in the case of M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider all aspects and pass a speaking order after giving the Assessee an opportunity to be heard.Issue 2: Error in penalty demand without completing assessment proceedingsThe Assessee argued that the penalty demand of Rs. 20,53,272 was sustained without completing assessment proceedings under section 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to reevaluate the issues and make a fresh decision after considering all evidence and documents. The Assessee was instructed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) for a hearing and to submit all necessary documents.Issue 3: Erroneous order by Ld. CIT(A)The Assessee claimed that the order of Ld. CIT(A), Appeals-13, New Delhi was erroneous in both law and facts. The Tribunal acknowledged this contention and ordered a reevaluation of the issues by the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure a correct and comprehensive decision after considering all relevant factors.Issue 4: Need for a speaking order in administrative decisionsThe Tribunal highlighted the requirement for even administrative orders to be speaking ones. Referring to the case law, the Tribunal emphasized that administrative decisions must adhere to the rules of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide a detailed and reasoned decision on the issues at hand, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the Assessee for statistical purposes and directed a fresh consideration of the issues by the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure a speaking order and proper assessment of the penalty demand.