ITAT Delhi Remits Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Review Due to Lack of Reasoning in order

Pragya Thareja Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

In the case of Pragya Thareja vs. ITO for Assessment Year 2014-15, the ITAT Delhi addressed the appeal against the order of CIT(A), Noida, dated 30.03.2017. The appeal arose from proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had rejected the appeal without providing a detailed discussion on the merits of the case, in violation of the requirement under section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that points of determination and a comprehensive adjudication be included in the order. Given this lack of reasoning, the ITAT Delhi remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh review, with a direction that the taxpayer be given three effective opportunities to present all relevant facts. The ITAT’s order was pronounced on 21/11/2024, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the order of CIT(A), Noida dated 30.03.2017 in Appeal No. 164/E-filing/2016-17/Noida, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2. Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.

3. Coming straightaway to the CIT(A) impugned lower appellate order under challenge. It is emerges at the outset that he has simply rejected the assessee’s appeal in a single para without having discussion anything at all on merits much less than that contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication there upon.

4. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for afresh effective innings with a rider that it shall be the www.taxguru.in taxpayer risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/11/2024.