CIT(A) NFAC order set aside for deciding wrong case - Section 250(6) violation requires fresh adjudication

ITAT Surat set aside CIT(A) NFAC order dismissing appellant's appeal after finding the appellate authority decided a different case entirely. The CIT(A) adjudicated appeal pertaining to ITO Ward-2 Vapi for AY 2016-17 involving partnership firm, while appellant's case related to ITO Ward-1 Surat for AY 2014-15. Grounds of appeal and facts considered were completely different from appellant's actual case. Order violated Section 250(6) mandate as it wasn't based on appellant's facts and grounds. Matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with proper hearing opportunity. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2014-15.

Analysis:
The appeal by the assessee was against the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included challenges to the dismissal of the appeal, sustaining the validity of proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, addition of deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b), treatment of deposits in the bank account as unexplained, and charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. The facts of the case involved the purchase of two immovable properties, treatment of the difference between stamp duty value and consideration as income from other sources, and addition of unexplained deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, resulting in a total income determination different from the returned income.

The Ld. CIT(A) passed an order on 29.12.2023, which was found to pertain to a different case than that of the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the facts and grounds of another case, not the appellant's case. This was against the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the appellate order to be in writing, stating the points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for the decision. As the appeal was decided on different grounds, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh order with a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Ld. AR relied on a Supreme Court decision, but it was deemed inapplicable to the present case due to the unique circumstances. The valuation report and the addition of credit entries were not considered by the authorities, leading to the setting aside of the Ld. CIT(A) order for a fresh adjudication. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with other grounds becoming academic due to the remittance of the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted procedural errors in the appellate order, leading to the setting aside of the decision and remittance for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The unique circumstances of the case necessitated a reevaluation by the Ld. CIT(A) to consider all materials and provide a reasoned decision.

---