George Molakal Mathew Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
CIT(A) Cannot Remand Without Deciding Legal Grounds—Order Set Aside for Breach of Section 250(6)
In George Molakal Mathew v. ITO, International Tax Ward-3, Pune (ITA No. 2236/PUN/2025; AY 2016-17), the ITAT Pune Bench examined the legality of an order passed by CIT(A)/NFAC which set aside an ex-parte assessment and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the assessee’s legal grounds.
The assessee challenged both the validity of reopening under Section 147 and the jurisdiction of NFAC in completing the assessment, besides other factual grounds. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC did not decide any of these grounds and simply restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that such an approach violates Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned, speaking order adjudicating each ground of appeal—factual and legal. A blanket remand without deciding jurisdictional and legal issues is impermissible.
Key Findings & Directions:
- CIT(A) must adjudicate legal grounds first, especially those relating to jurisdiction and validity of reopening.
- Remand to AO without deciding grounds is illegal and contrary to Section 250(6).
- The appeal ought to be decided by the proper territorial appellate authority (CIT(A)-13, Pune).
Outcome:
