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.
Held
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.
Key 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).
Sections Cited
144, 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
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.