SHARAD GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as it should have been filed before the CIT(A). The assessment order was passed pursuant to a section 263 order by the CIT.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B. The assessment order made an addition of Rs. 2,55,73,851/- to the returned income.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT when it should have been filed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted the direction to file an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM
This appeal is filed by Mr. Sharad Goyal [ Assessee/ Appellant] for assessment year 2017-18 against the order of the Assessment unit [assessing officer] dated 27.03.2023 making an addition of Rs.
The order has been passed by the assessment unit Income Tax Department u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact this appeal should have been filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Instead of this assessee has filed this appeal against assessment order before us.
At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The Ld. DR submitted that appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as it should have been filed before the Ld. CIT(A).
We have carefully considered the submission of the Ld. CIT - DR and find that this appeal has been filed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the assessment unit pursuant to order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the CIT. In fact assessee should have filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable before us. According to notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act dated 27.03.2023 Assessment unit [ para 6 ] also directed assessee to file appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre. However, perhaps due to inadvertence assessee has filed this appeal before us. In view of this we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as infructuous and direct the assessee to file appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre with appropriate application for condonation of delay.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2023.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026