TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Appellate Authority was not justified in remitting back the case to the file of the AO, as the same has been done in complete disregard to the CBDT Instructions to the contrary, as well as in complete disregard to the serious issues raised by the appellant with respect to legality of the case, which needed attention of the Appellate Authority on priority basis. 3. The appellant wishes to make a detailed submission on these issues of legality of the case at the time of hearing of the case, which may please be allowed. 4. The Appellant craves leave of Your Honors to add/alter/delete any of the above cited grounds on or before the date of hearing of this appeal. 5. The appellant makes a humble request to please grant a personal hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,58,85,877/- (29,89,877 + 1,28,96,000) and business income of Rs. 50,20,957/- calculated at the rate of 10% of remaining credits of Rs. 5,02,09,578/- of Canara Bank (6,31,05,578 - 1,28,96,000). 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order an appeal was furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the written submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, set-aside the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by observing as under :- "6.0 Decision & Reason. 6.1 In this instant case the appellant had not filed his return of Income for the relevant Assessment Year 2018-19. Further, on the basis of information received by the A.O., it was found that during the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the appellant while completing the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B, dt. 01.03.2023 for the A.Υ.2018-19. 6.3. During the instant appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted some additional arguments which were not made before the Assessing Officer. These arguments require consideration by the Assessing Officer. 6.4 As per the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) in case of order of assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act, may set aside such assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. This proviso has been inserted in the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024. The said proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act is reproduced as under: "251. (1) I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation afresh by the Assessing Officer. 7.0. The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose." 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that he has furnished two written submissions before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, first on 16.04.2024 and second on 16.05.2024 respectively, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order u/s 250 on 21.02.2025 i.e. after a gap of nearly 8 months which is in complete disregard of CBDT Instruction No.20 of 2003 dated 23.12.2003 and CBDT Instruction No. F.No. 279/MISC/53/2003-ITJ dt. 19-06-2015 respectively. Ld. AR explained that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l wherein the appeal of the assessee was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide each and every grounds separately including the legal grounds. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide all the grounds including legal grounds as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the IT Act. 8. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities however no serious objection was raised by him on the request of the Counsel of the assessee to set aside the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A) for deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reason for the decision." 10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that in the light of section 250(6) of the IT Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is mandatorily required to pass a reasoned order addressing each ground of appeal raised by the assessee. And failure to adjudicate all grounds, specifically legal grounds, violates this statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was duty bound to decide each and every ground separately by a speaking order, and specifically when legal grounds against the validity of notice and reassessment are raised, it was compulsory for Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the legal grounds raise....