INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. RAMAN KUMAR, HOSHIARPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the Revenue's contentions to be correct. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the parties.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which set aside the assessment order. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, as per Section 251 of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, considering the limitations imposed by Section 251 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.288/PUN/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, Raman Kumar, Pune Talwandi Dadian, Vs. Dasuya, Hosiarpur, Punjab-144203 PAN-ALLPK3568P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : None Department by : Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25-05-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2021-22.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the Revenue, however these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) despite having no jurisdiction to do so u/s 251 of the Act.
2 ITA No.288/PUN/2026
None appeared for and/or on behalf of the assesse when the matter was called for hearing on 21.05.2026. The assesse failed to appear even on the earlier date of hearing on 06.04.2026. No adjournment application has been filed by the assesse for any of the above two dates fixed for hearing. However, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was present on all the above dates of hearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of Ld. DR and the material available on record.
We have perused the case records and heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR at the outset submitted that the sole grievance of the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is that he has wrongly set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act because the Ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to do so u/s 251 of the Act. The Ld. AO has passed the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act as mandated in the Proviso to section 251(1)(a) inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with effect from 01.10.2024 which empowers the Appellant Authority to set aside and remand only in case where the appeal is against the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
On perusal the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we find the above contentions of the Ld. AO to be correct. In this view of the matter, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for re-adjudication afresh on merits of the case after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall make the necessary submissions as may be required/called upon on the appointed date, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. We hold
3 ITA No.288/PUN/2026
and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 25th May, 2026. Neeta आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 6. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
सह यक रदिस्ट्र र / Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 251
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ITO(Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs Raj Rishi Bhartihari Matsya University…ITA 1167/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society, Walwa vs ITO WD-5, SangliITA 472/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), WardITA 1339/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), FaridabadITA 1295/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026