CES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s action in principle, acknowledging the jurisdictional argument. However, it directed the assessee to appear before the AO for verification of the ESI/PF disallowance and TDS credit, granting them opportunities for hearing.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed ESI/PF payments and added short credit of TDS. The CIT(A) restored these issues back to the AO for verification. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to set aside issues after an amendment to Section 251(1)(a).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to set aside issues for further verification after the omission of 'or he may set aside' from Section 251(1)(a) of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2014-15 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 18-02-2019 passed in case No. 0212 / 2016-17 / ITO-17(1) / CIT(A)-1 / Hyd / 2018-19, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case filed perused.
The assessee has pleaded the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have allowed the ground of appeal with regard to the disallowance of Rs.3,46,655/- instead of directing the AO to verify further.
3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have allowed the ground of appeal in respect of credit for TDS of Rs.2,23,29,360/- instead of directing the AO to verify further.
4. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”.
3. It transpires during the course of hearing that we need not delve much deeper in the relevant facts. The Assessing Officer had made the above stated two disallowances of assessee’s ESI/PF payments and followed by addition of short credit of TDS of Rs.2,23,29,360/- in the course of assessment which in turn stand restored back to him by the CIT(A) in his lower appellate order to accept the corresponding claims after due verification of facts.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The assessee’s only case is that the CIT(A) no more possesses the jurisdiction to set aside the said issues in his lower appellate adjudication since the relevant statutory expression ‘or he may set aside’ in Section 251(1)(a) of the Act stands omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01-06-2001. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing the foregoing legal plea. The fact also remains that both the assessee’s substantive grievances indeed require factual verification regarding the due date so far as its ESI/PF disallowance is concerned as well as the TDS credit figures in form 26AS viz-a-viz the books of accounts. We therefore reverse the CIT(A)’s action in principle but adopt the very cause of action in the assessee’s twin substantive grounds in the larger interest of justice. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 31-08-2021 along with all the necessary details to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing; at its own risk and responsibility.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2021
More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)
- Sanjay Kumar Jaisinghani, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 699/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Yogesh Ramdas Ghode, Nashik vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), NashikITA 508/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs Arjun Sood, LudhianaITA 301/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhawan vs Arjun Sood, Notrth Avenue OppositeITA 216/CHANDI/2025[2014]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026
- Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Chandigarh vs ITO Ward 5(5), ChandigarhITA 1037/CHANDI/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- 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