RAMAKANT (HUF) vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ramakant (HUF). The Court held that the petition was misconceived on multiple grounds. Firstly, a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exists against ITAT orders, making a writ petition inappropriate. Secondly, the ITAT's order clearly recorded that the assessee had expressed no objection to a remand to the AO. Thirdly, if the assessee disputed the recording of 'no objection', the proper course was to file a miscellaneous application or review before the ITAT, not approach the High Court. Fourthly, the remand was to the AO for passing a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing, which did not warrant interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 260A of the Act. The Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's direction for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ramakant (HUF), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘A’. The ITAT had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The petitioner argued that the ITAT wrongly remanded the matter, especially since the CIT(A) had not previously called for a remand. The High Court noted that the ITAT's order recorded that the assessee, present at the time, had expressed no objection to a remand. The High Court also observed that the statute provides a remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against ITAT orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) when the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had not previously initiated a remand, and whether this action is amenable to challenge via a writ petition. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the powers of the ITAT under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The ITAT wrongly remanded the matter to the AO. The assessee argued that the ITAT's observation that the CIT(A) had not called for a remand was erroneous and that the remand itself was unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely support the ITAT's order and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.
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
The present writ petition is directed against order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has wrongly remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) observing that the CIT(A) had not called for a remand earlier.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the petition is misconceived: (i) Firstly, because the statute provides a remedy of appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against 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 02/05/2026 at 12:38:14
an order of the ITAT. (ii) Secondly, because para no.2 of the order of the Tribunal clearly records that the assessee, who himself was present, had expressed no objection, if the matter was to be remanded to the AO. (iii) Thirdly, because if the assessee contends that his ‘no objection’ has been wrongly recorded, the proper course for the assessee was to file a miscellaneous application or review before the Tribunal. This Court, in any even cannot examine the correctness of the assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘no objection’ was not given by the petitioner. (vi) Fourthly, the matter has been remanded to the AO with a direction to pass fresh order, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 260A of the Act of 1961. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 29, 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 02/05/2026 at 12:38:14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
