| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Sandeep Gosain (JM), Shamim Yahya (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 250, 254, Rule 27 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | powers of CIT(A), powers of ITAT |
| COUNSEL: | Dr. K. Shivram, Neelam Jadhav |
| DATE: | July 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | November 3, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 250/ 254: If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay | |
Examining the present case on the touchstone of above said case law, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) here directly falls under the ambit of Hon’ble High Court’s order as above. The ld. CIT(A) has decided one issue and has left undecided another issues duly raised before him. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that these issues relating to validity of reopening were duly raised, which have been left undecided by the ld. CIT(A) and need to be remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to complete his appellate order by deciding on these issues regarding the validity of reopening which were duly raised before him by the assessee
Recent Comments