Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Gadhethariya vs. The Ito - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (07 Sep 2023)

As per Section 250 (5) of IT Act, order of the Commissioner of Income Tax shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, and the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

MANU/IR/0149/2023

Direct Taxation

Present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue involved in present case is whether the CIT(A) has erred in passing the Appellate Order under Section 250 of IT Act without providing adequate Opportunity of being heard/ short hearing Notices and thereby violated the principle of Audi alteram partem.

It appears that the learned CIT(A) has missed to consider the details furnished by the assessee while passing appellate order and outrightly accepted the finding of the AO. Section 250(5) clearly provides the order of the learned CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, and the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is not in consonance with provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, which require the learned CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. No doubt on the face of the record, it suggests that the assessee had furnished the details with regard to the dispute and filed written submissions, however, the learned CIT(A) did not consider the same while passing the impugned order.

Thus, based on the fact that impugned order was passed without considering written submissions filed by the assessee and the material available on record, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Learned CIT(A) is directed to re-adjudicate the case on merit after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY   HEARING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved