DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. WEBTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD., KOLKATA
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?
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
Date of hearing 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
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.
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)
- 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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026