Ajji Basha v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.09.2019 THE HONOURNABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Ajji Basha ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Corporate Circle 4(1) 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034. .. Respondent s Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords on the file of the first respondent and quash the orderpassed in TA.96/CIT(A)-7/2018-19 dated 28.06.2019 for theassessment Year 2016-17 as illegal and against the principles ofnatural justice and fair play and direct the first respondent toprovide opportunity of hearing in the appeal filed against theassessment order in AFKPA1737R dated 18.12.2018. For Respondents: Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel This writ petition is filed challenging the order of thefirst respondent dated 28.06.2019. 2. For the assessment year 2016-17, an order of assessmentwas passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2018 under Section143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Challenging the said order,the petitioner presented an appeal before the First AppellateAuthority/ First respondent herein on 18.01.2019. The FirstAppellate Authority disposed of the appeal on 28.06.2019, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order impugned in this writ petition, thereby dismissing theAppeal. The main ground raised in this Writ Petition against theorder of the Appellate Authority is that the same was passed intotal non-application of mind and without providing anopportunity of hearing. It is also contended that it is a non-speaking order and thus, cannot be sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the abovecontentions and thus, submitted that the impugned order cannotbe sustained on any account. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondentsthough contended that as against the impugned order, furtherappellate remedy is available to the petitioner, she is however,fair enough to admit the position that the first respondent hasnot given any independent reasons and findings for dismissingthe appeal. 5. Heard Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, the learned Senior Standing Counselfor the respondents and perused the materials placed before thisCourt. 6. Being aggrieved against the order of assessment passedby the Assessing Officer, the petitioner went on appeal. Thefirst respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to statethat the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authorityand therefore, he has to consider the order of assessment on thegrounds raised in the appeal and thereafter, pass a speakingorder on merits and in accordance with law by giving his ownreasons and findings as to whether the order of assessment canbe sustained or not. In other words, the order passed by theAppellate Authority should explicitly exhibit his application ofmind to the facts and circumstances and the objections raised inthe grounds of appeal, also by expressing his reasons andfindings in support of his conclusion. 7. In this case, the Appellate Authority, after extractingthe order of the Assessing Officer in full, has not given anyother reason or finding to dismiss the appeal except by statingthat he is of the considered view that the Assessing Officer'sorder is a self speaking order and does not call for anyinterference. In my considered view, such single line finding ofthe Appellate Authority, cannot be sustained as a properexercise of the Appellate Authority, while disposing the appeal.Therefore, it is apparent that the order impugned in this writpetition is an outcome of total non-application of mind.Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It isfurther contended that before passing the order, the petitionerwas not heard. 7. In this case, the Appellate Authority, after extractingthe order of the Assessing Officer in full, has not given anyother reason or finding to dismiss the appeal except by statingthat he is of the considered view that the Assessing Officer'sorder is a self speaking order and does not call for anyinterference. In my considered view, such single line finding ofthe Appellate Authority, cannot be sustained as a properexercise of the Appellate Authority, while disposing the appeal.Therefore, it is apparent that the order impugned in this writpetition is an outcome of total non-application of mind.Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It isfurther contended that before passing the order, the petitionerwas not heard. 8. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this WritPetition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and thematter is remitted back to the first respondent for passingfresh order on merits and in accordance with law, after givingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to statethat the fresh order to be passed by the appellate authorityshall be a speaking order with reasons and findings. It is alsomade clear that this Court is not making any view on the meritsof the claim made by the petitioner as it is for the appellateauthority to consider and decide. The Appellate Authority shallpass such order as directed supra within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vsi Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Corporate Circle 4(1) 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.+1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, SR.No.78193+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.77648 W.P.No.26091 of 2019 Kak(30/09/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/