Moningi Nageswar Rao v. Mr. B. Panda, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 42 of 2015 Moningi Nageswar Rao -versus- …. Appellant Mr. B. Panda, Advocate ….Respondents The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Berhampur Circle and another Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy Senior Standing Counsel for IT Department CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER30.01.2023 Order No. 03. 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law is framed for consideration by this Court: “In view of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) being a mere reproduction of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) without any independent reasons given for concurrence does the impugned order required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the ITAT?” 4. The present appeal by the Assessee is directed against an order dated 20[th] March, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dismissing the Assessee’s appeal being ITA No.36/CTK/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 5. The aforementioned appeal before the ITAT was against an order dated 20[th] November, 2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), Berhampur. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Assessee and learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, the Court notes that if the impugned order of the ITAT and the order of the CIT(A) were to be kept side by side, it would become obvious that in the impugned order, the ITAT has simply reproduced the paragraphs of the CIT(A). One instance is Para-7.3 of the impugned order of the ITAT which is nothing but an exact reproduction of Para-6.3.3 of the order of the CIT(A). The impugned order proceeds in the same pattern where, till the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order of the ITAT, it is thus simply a reproduction of the paras of the order of the CIT(A). 7. It is obvious to the Court therefore that the ITAT did not independently apply its mind while affirming the order of the CIT(A). In other words, there are no reasons given by the ITAT of its own for its conclusion. 8. In that view of the matter, while answering the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Department, the Court sets aside the impugned order of the ITAT and remands ITA No.36/CTK/2014 to the file of the ITAT for a fresh disposal in accordance with law on merits after hearing the parties. 9. The aforementioned appeal will be listed now before the ITAT on 15[th] March 2023. The ITAT is requested to proceed to hear the S. Behera appeal on merits and pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing the parties within a period of six months thereafter. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge