ITAT couldn’t decide an appeal merely making observation that facts didn’t require any further deliberation
a) Assessee filed her return declaring certain taxable income. Assessing Officer (AO) completed assessment making certain additions. On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
b) On further appeal, the Tribunal remanded matter back to AO for quantification of income. The assessee filed instant appeal before the High Court raising the question as to whether the order of a quasi-judicial authority like the Tribunal was valid even when it did not consider all the grounds taken before it.
The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
1) So far as the first substantial question of law was concerned, the same was that the Tribunal did not consider the grounds urged by the assessee, even though detailed arguments and re-submissions were made.
2) The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the consideration of the facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not require any further deliberation on the issue of reassessments. To consider an appeal merely by holding that the consideration of facts would not require any further deliberation did not be appropriate.
3) The Tribunal was required to reassess the material and thereafter come to a conclusion. Without according any reason and merely accepting the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) was inappropriate.
4) So far as the second substantial question of law with regard to assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 was concerned, it was found that the Tribunal did not consider the plea of the assessee with regard to the jurisdiction under Section 147.
5) Thus, this question also required to be considered by the Tribunal. The failure of the Tribunal to consider the question of jurisdiction had led to miscarriage of justice.
6) Accordingly, it was held that the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable, since it did not consider the grounds urged before it and had committed an error in not considering the contention of the assessee with regard to the question raised before it.
 – [2019] 101 318 (Karnataka)