ATUL AGARWAL, MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to frame points of determination and provide a detailed discussion. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order which affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions. The appeal was proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal without framing points of determination? Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Atul Agarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Ward-1(1), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEWPA0627H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023–24/1057865633(1) dated 10.11.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein has failed to ensure as compliance to section 250(6) of the Act
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026