AMRIT BOTTLERS PVT LTD.,WEST BENGAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that due to communication gaps and ineffective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, the assessee could not effectively plead its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps, warranting a restoration of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Amrit Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vs DCIT, A-3, 7th Floor, Madhusudan Central Circle-6, Apartments, P-18, Dobson Lane, New Delhi-110002 Howrah, West Bengal-711101 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCA4794J Assessee by : Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071098043(1) dated 11.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026