CIT(A) incorrect in not adjudicating the ground raised merely because AR agreed not to press it
In a recent judgment, the ITAT has held that CIT(A) was incorrect in not adjudicating the ground raised in appeal merely because AR agreed not to press it
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3946 (2024) (04) ITAT
Important Case Laws relied upon:
S. R Kosthi Vs. CIT 146 taxman 335(Guj)
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) treating the capital loss arising on the sale of quoted equity shares as bogus merely based on the alleged affirmation of the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee that he do not intend to press that ground.
The Tribunal noted that CIT(A) had dismissed the ground of the assessee stating that the AR of the assessee agreed that he did not intend to press that ground and based on that same was not decided.
Before the Tribunal the assessee argued that there was no reasons by the AR of the assessee or in fact there was no instruction of the assessee on the issue.
It was submitted that the right of the assessee to challenge the addition made in the assessment order is material legal right, which cannot be taken away, when the assessee has taken the ground, filed the written submission and therefore, the issue cannot be dismissed without rendering the justice to the assessee.
The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court wherein the court held that the assessee should not be stopped from taking the please which under the eyes of law is correct position merely on the ground that the assessee has agreed, the CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal though agreeing that the issue on merits in fact in favour of the assessee or not.
In view of the binding judicial precedent, the Tribunal opined that the assessee legal right to receive the justice cannot be taken away merely based on the contention that the AR of the assessee agreed to not to press the ground.
The Tribunal opined that ground of appeal raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) needed to be adjudicated upon merit .
Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the issue raised back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits in accordance with the law.
Download Full Judgment ABCAUS 3946 (2024) (04) ITAT Click Here >>
- No statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act – HC
- Engagement of Company Secretaries as Young Professionals at RoC Mumbai and Pune
- Applicability of Section 115BBE rws 69, 69A 69C in a case before Settlement Commission
- Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits
- SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC
 incorrect in not adjudicating ground raised merely because AR agreed not to press){kind=link}