ITO WARD-1, SONEPAT vs. DISTRICT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, SONEPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1229/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2025Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer in his personal name. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal but allowed the department liberty to file a fresh appeal in the correct official capacity, with the delay condoned.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer in his personal name, rather than in the official capacity of the department.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by an Assessing Officer in his personal capacity is maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 03.06.2025

Date of hearing 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059768074(1), dated 16.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the respondent-assessee’s side. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

We notice at the outset that the appellant herein is none else than the Assessing Officer himself who has instituted the instant appeal in his personal name. That being the case, and in light of the fact that the department’s instant appeal ought to have been instituted in official than personal capacity of the Assessing Officer, we hereby reject the same with a rider that it shall indeed be at a liberty to institute a fresh case as per law and delay as on date shall be deemed to have been condoned. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →