MEHBOOB KHAN, RAOSAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

ITA 621/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 September 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mehboob Khan, filed an appeal against an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the computation of short-term capital gain and provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity. The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 2,18,920/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 due to the sale of two immovable properties for less than their fair market value, attracting Section 50C. The AO completed the assessment under Section 147/144B, making an addition of Rs. 33,50,000/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) resulted in the remand order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the AO for factual verification without adjudicating the pure legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. PCIT, which stated that if an infirmity arises at the CIT(A)'s level, the issue should be decided by the CIT(A) and not remanded back to the AO, especially when jurisdictional grounds were raised. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order in light of the legal grounds raised by the assessee and the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the assessee's submissions? (Mixed question of law and fact). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal grounds raised, such as wrongful assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 as against Section 153C, and that the initiation was based on borrowed satisfaction. The revenue did not present any arguments as the Department's representative was heard, but their specific contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 147,Section 50C,Section 153C,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2013-14/10120633 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. 2014-15, wherein ld CIT(A), set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the file of ld assessing officer in exercise of powers vested in him vide proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act to frame the assessment order after verifying the computation of short term capital gain and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

2.

At the outset, we notice th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 926 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →