ANAND SALES, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is mandated to adjudicate all legal grounds raised by the assessee before it. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had failed to do so and had instead simply remanded the case back to the AO. The ITAT emphasized that legal issues must be examined by the first appellate authority before any restoration to the AO, if at all. Therefore, in the interest of substantive justice, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to its file. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to adjudicate the legal grounds assailed by the assessee in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to comply with the hearing notices issued by the First Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Anand Sales, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The original assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, on December 8, 2025, under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had previously set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to comply with notices and submit evidence. However, the ITAT noted that certain legal grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remained un-adjudicated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred in remanding the matter back to the AO without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, as required by law and principles of natural justice, under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC failed to adjudicate the legal grounds presented before it and improperly remanded the case to the AO. The assessee argued that it is mandatory for the appellate authority to decide legal issues before considering a remand. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(2),Section 143(3),Section 251(1)(a),Section 152(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.08.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
In this case, assessment order has been passed dated 08.12.2025 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). That there was no compliance by the assessee before the A.O. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remanded the matter back to the file of the A.O observing as follows: “6. Examination of the Issue and Decision: 6.1 During assessment proceedings, appellant remained non-compliant and the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Section 142(2) requires that due enquiries should be conducted to arrive at true and correct income of the taxpayer for the given year. Section 143(3) specifies that assessee should present evidence in support of the computation of taxable income in their return of income, and, may also submit any further evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. Appellant, however, has now raised grounds against additions made and has submitted submissions and documents, for consideration of the revenue. 6.2 Accordingly, in view of the power conferred vide proviso to clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 251 of the Act applicable w.e.f. 01/10/2024, the assessment order dated 08.12,2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act is set aside and the case of appellant is referred back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after affording reasonable opportunities to the appellant and diligently adhering to the principle of natural justice. The appellant is directed to
3 Anand Sales Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.756/RPR/2026
comply with notices issued by the AO and submit arguments and evidences. 6.3 The AO is therefore directed to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with rules and timelines prescribed u/s 152(3) of the Act and after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the result, the appeal is set aside.”
It is further noted from Form 35 in the grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee had assailed certain legal grounds which remained un-adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. It is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to adjudicate legal grounds and it could not be left un-adjudicated and simply remanded to the file of the A.O. The First Appellate Authority needs to examine the legal issues before restoring the matter, if at all, to the file of the A.O. In the present scenario, as apparent from the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, legal grounds assailed before the said authority were left un-adjudicated. Hence, in the interest of substantive justice, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for adjudication of legal grounds assailed by the assessee as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. The assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices issued by the First Appellate Authority.
4 Anand Sales Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.756/RPR/2026
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 29th day of October, 2026.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 29th October, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, SAMIRAN Digitally signed by // True Copy // SAMIRAN BERA BERA Date: 2026.10.29 Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 15:09:16 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026