RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal adopted a correct approach in remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh. The Court found that the CIT(A)'s order, which was 27 pages long, contained nothing but a reproduction of the assessee's reply and the Assessing Officer's findings. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal in just three lines by relying on a previous order for a different assessment year and a different, though group, assessee, without providing any specific reasoning for upturning the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs.10,30,65,230/- on account of support service expenses. The Court emphasized that an appellate authority cannot examine the correctness of issues unless the order under challenge is reasoned, as recording of reasons is essential for an order to survive and for the appellate authority to ascertain the basis of the decision. The Court also distinguished the judgment in Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, stating it did not favor the assessee's cause in this instance. The appeal was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Religare Enterprises Ltd (successor-in-interest of Religare Securities Ltd), appealed against an order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appellant argued that the ITAT, being the last fact-finding authority, should have decided the appeal on merits rather than remanding it. The respondent-Income Tax Department contended that no substantial question of law arose and the CIT(A)'s order was devoid of reasons, justifying the remand. The CIT(A)'s order dated 10.09.2018, which was 27 pages long, largely reproduced the assessee's reply and the Assessing Officer's findings, and in three lines, allowed the appeal by relying on a previous order for a different assessment year and a different, albeit group, assessee. The disallowance in dispute was Rs.10,30,65,230/- on account of support service expenses.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) instead of deciding the appeal on merits, considering the Tribunal is the last fact-finding authority? (Question of law and fact, turning on the scope of the Tribunal's powers and the adequacy of the CIT(A)'s order). Assessee's Contention: The Tribunal should have decided the appeal on facts, as it is the last fact-finding authority. Even if the CIT(A)'s reasons were insufficient, the Tribunal ought to have considered the material on record and decided the appeal. Relied on: Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr. Lr. vs. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 SSC OnLine SC 146. Revenue's Contention: No substantial question of law arises. The Tribunal correctly remanded the matter because the CIT(A)'s order lacked any meaningful reasons.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By way of present appeal, the appellant-assessee has challenged the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, F, New Delhi (ITAT) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has erred in remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’).
He submitted that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal on facts and even if the Tribunal was of the view that the reasons given by the CIT(A) are not sufficient, it ought to have considered the material on record and accordingly decide the appeal.
In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated 13.02.2023 in the case of Arvind Kumar This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:16:35 Jaiswal (D) Thr. Lr. vs. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun reported in 2023 SSC OnLine SC 146. 5. Ms. Monica Benjamin, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department on the other hand submitted that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law has arisen in this case, requiring an adjudication by this Court in its limited scope under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. She added that the Tribunal has simply remanded the matter back to the CIT(A), whose order if perused, clearly shows that no reason worth the name had been given.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) passed on 10.09.2018, we find that the CIT(A) has passed an order of 27 pages which contains nothing but reproduction, assessee’s reply and the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO).
The CIT(A) in just three lines, and that too by relying on his previous order passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 had allowed the appeal. Furthermore, said order was with respect to a different assessee namely M/s Religare Arts Initiative Ltd, maybe a group Company. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereinfra:- “5. 5. Since the facts are similar, following the decision of the CIT(A), relief was allowed to the appellant in the appellant's group case for the A.Y. 2012-13. In the present appeal, as the facts are similar, following the order of CIT(Appeals) on this issue, disallowance of Rs.10,30,65,230/- on account of support This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:16:35 service expenses made by the AO, is deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant.”
According to us, the CIT(A), who is the first Authority, was required to give some reasons, more particularly, when he upturns the order passed by the AO.
An Appellate Authority cannot examine the correctness of the issues decided unless the authority whose order is under challenge, has passed a reasoned order. Recording of reasons is like flesh and blood to an order; without reasons, an order cannot survive. Unless an order contains reasons, the Appellate Authority cannot ascertain as to what transpired in the mind of the authority and whether the view taken by the authority below is in accordance with facts and law.
If the contention of Mr. Jain is to be accepted that the Tribunal should itself examine the record rather than remanding the case, the adjudication made by the CIT(A) i.e., the first Appellate Authority would be rendered a futile exercise. In such case, the Tribunal would have to hear all the appeals as if it were the first Appellate Authority and give reasons.
So far as judgment in the case of Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (supra) is concerned, we are of the view that the same does not favour assessee’s cause. Because, para no.3 thereof, clearly covers the case in hands. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 13.02.2023 of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinfra: “An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:16:35 sufficient to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential.”
In the instant case, since the order of the CIT(A) does not dilate upon any of the contentions or facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal has adopted a correct approach in remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh.
Since the matter has been remanded back to the CIT(A) and the appeal stands restored to his dockets, it is ordered that the appeal be decided as per the priority it ought to have been given, when the same was filed.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and pending application is disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 18, 2026/cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:16:35
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
