DEB RUPAYAN HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCEL 13(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 516/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 June 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) should have considered the report and decided the appeal afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny. An ex-parte assessment order was passed, computing a significantly higher income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer without considering the remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by failing to consider the remand report. The procedural fairness of the appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.516/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Deb Rupayan Housing Vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Company Limited Kolkata 102A, Central Road, HB Town, Sodepur, Kolkata-700 010 [PAN: AAACD8968R] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Subhash Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 16.10.2024passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed his return of income at Rs.99,91,620/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’. An Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 144 of

ITA No.516/KOL/2026 Deb Rupayan Housing Company Limited; A.Y: 2014-15 the Act on 13.12.2016, by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs.6,67,26,360/-

3.

As against the Assessment Order, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 16.10.2024, partly allowed the Appeal and Remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.10.2024, the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, since the Assessment Order was ex-parte, Assessee submitted certain documents and made elaborate submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) called for the Remand Report and without even looking into the contents of the Remand Report, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Thus, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had merely Remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessee cannot have any grievance. Thus, the Ld. DR sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that, during the first appellate Page | 2

ITA No.516/KOL/2026 Deb Rupayan Housing Company Limited; A.Y: 2014-15 proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) called for the Remand Report and the Assessing Officer has given detailed comments on each and every addition/ground. However, while deciding the first Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not even referred to the Remand Report. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the Remand Report and should have decided the first Appeal of the Assessee.

7.

In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the Remand Report filed by the Assessing Officer and decide the first Appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.

8.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.06.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.516/KOL/2026 Deb Rupayan Housing Company Limited; A.Y: 2014-15 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →