THE INDURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, C R BUILDING
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the issue of gratuity disallowance, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 29 days, which was condoned due to the death of the Chartered Accountant. The assessee's counsel argued that leave encashment was allowed, but gratuity was disallowed. The assessee prayed for remittance to verify gratuity payments.
What were the issues?
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) should verify the claim of gratuity and adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 18.06.2024 arising out of the Assessment Order passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, dated 19.04.2021 under Section 143(2) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The Indure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) 2. There is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before us in support of which an application for condonation of delay is filed mentioning that the Chartered Accountant who was entrusted of the matter was unwell and later on died on 11.03.2025; the explanation supported by document is found to be genuine and, hence, the delay is condoned.
At the very threshold of the matter, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us though payment has been made during the year under consideration the leave encashment was allowed, however, gratuity was disallowed. In that view of the matter, he prayed for remitting the issue to the file of the authorities below to verify the payment of gratuity made by the assessee and to pass orders accordingly. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to verify the claim of gratuity upon examining the evidences. We find it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidences on record or any other evidence which the assessee may chose to file at the time of hearing of the matter.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2025
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
