DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. WEBTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 598/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2025Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the appeal. The Revenue's challenge to this direction, based on the peculiar facts of the case, was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which set aside the assessee's appeal back to the Assessing Officer. This action was taken in light of an amended Section 251(1)(a) Proviso concerning a best judgment assessment framed under Section 144 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the appeal back to the Assessing Officer in the context of a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and considering the amended Section 251(1)(a).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 12.08.2025Pronounced: 12.08.2025

Date of hearing 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida’s order dated 20.11.2024 passed in case no. CIT(A), Kanpur- 4/11294/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that what all the learned lower appellate authority has done is to “set aside” the assessee’s lower appeal back to the Assessing Officer; in light of the amended Section 251(1)(a) Proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024; back to the Assessing Officer since the latter had framed his best judgment assessment on 26.09.2021 u/s 144 of the Act. That being the case, we see neither any illegality nor infirmity; as the case may be, in the learned CIT(A)’s set aside directions sought to be challenged at the Revenue’s behest in the peculiar facts involved herein. It’s instant sole substantive grievance is hereby accordingly rejected.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →