ITO, HATHRAS vs. DEEPAK BUTIA HUF, HATHRAS

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) empowering remand to the AO is applicable only when the assessment order is passed under Section 144. Since the assessment was not under Section 144, the CIT(A) erred in remanding the case.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing the assessment was not made under Section 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in exercising powers under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) for remand when the assessment order was not passed under Section 144 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251(1)(a),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Maheshwari, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR), Shri Sushil Kumar Maheshwari, CA
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 183/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 ITO 4(3)(4), Vs. Deepak Butia HUF, Mathura-Hathras Road, Hathras- A-1, Industrial Area, 204101 Hathras-204101 PAN :AAFHD3349N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR) Assessee by Shri Sushil Kumar Maheshwari, CA. Date of hearing 06.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.07.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This revenue appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2021-22/10355273 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2022-23, wherein ld CIT(A) has restored assessee’s first appeal to the file of assessing officer in exercise of his powers under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act.

ITA No.183/Agr/2026

2.

At the very outset, we notice that this appeal is time barred by 28 days. The delay condonation application submitted on behalf of the appellant states that the said delay was caused due to the engagement in some urgent time barring matters. We treat the cause shown by the department as sufficient. The delay of 28 days caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. According to the background of the case, the assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024, whereby the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,86,74,974/-. In the first appeal, ld CIT(A) set aside the assessment order in exercise of the powers vested under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act and restored the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh assessment order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. 4. Appellant revenue has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in interpreting provision of section 251(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessment order in this case was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act which is not in the purview of proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in ignoring the facts that ample opportunity were given to the assessee as discussed in para 3 of Assessment Order. Even case was heard on 15-03-2024 with AR through Video Conferencing during the Assessment Proceedings however the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.183/Agr/2026

3.

That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the facts that A.O discussed in para 8 of the Assessment Order as the discrepancies were noticed that assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or delete or alter or modify any one or more ground(s) of appeal during the appellate proceedings.” 5. We have perused the records and heard ld CIT DR for the appellant revenue and ld representative for the respondent assessee. 6. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) has erred in remanding the case to Assessing Officer in exercise of power under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as the assessment order was not passed u/s 144 of the Act? 7. Ld CIT DR has submitted that the case was heard on 15.03.2024 with assessee’s representative through video conferencing during the assessment proceedings. The impugned order is not in the purview of the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 8. Ld representative for the assessee has also supported the fact of participating during the assessment proceedings and submitted that the assessment order was not passed u/s 144 of the Act, thus ld CIT(A) could not have exercised the power of remand in such a scenario. 9. We notice that the proviso inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 wef 01.10.2024, empowers ld CIT(A) that when the first appeal filed before him is against the order of assessment made u/s 144, he

3 | P a g e

ITA No.183/Agr/2026

may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the assessing officer for making a fresh assessment. However, perusal of the assessment order shows that in response to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 23.08.2023 and 12.10.2023, assessee filed his replies on 04.10.2023, 01.10.2023 and 11.12.2023. According to para 10 of the assessment order, assessee also responded to show cause notice dated 29.02.2024 and requested for V.C., which was conducted on 15.03.2024 at 12 p.m. The representative of the assessee Shri. Narayan Agrawal is also stated to have appeared and participated during the assessment proceedings. Ld Assessing Officer has further mentioned that the ld representative for the assessee explained the issues. It is easily inferred that the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was not passed u/s 144 of the Act but after considering assessee’s submissions on merits. 10. The power entrusted to ld CIT(A) under newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act could be exercised only when the assessment is passed u/s 144 of the Act only, which is not as such in case in hand. In such circumstances, ld CIT(A) has erred in remanding the case to the assessing officer and the impugned order cannot thus be sustained in the eye of law and hence, set aside. The case is restored back to the file of ld CIT(A) for passing order a fresh on merits

4 | P a g e

ITA No.183/Agr/2026

after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering all written/ oral submissions of the assessee. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 06.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 09.07.2026 *AS, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →