INDIA PRINTING WORKS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order for AY 2016-17 contained facts and figures pertaining to AY 2009-10. Due to this significant error and the potential denial of opportunity to the appellant, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The appellant filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2016-17. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) order was passed without proper adjudication, mixed facts from AY 2009-10, and denied an opportunity of being heard. Additionally, the appellant argued about the incorrect rate of tax applied for Deemed Short Term Capital Gain.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order for AY 2016-17 was erroneously passed with facts from AY 2009-10, denying natural justice and proper adjudication of grounds including the correct tax rate on Short Term Capital Gains.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without going into merits of the case. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the said Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017 wherein, all the facts and findings are mentioned that of AY 2009- 20 Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the said Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017 wherein, all the facts and findings are mentioned that of AY 2009-2010, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017 without granting Opportunity of being
2 India Printing Works Heard to the Appellant. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, all the Hearing Notices dates as mentioned in the CIT (A) Order for AY 2016-17 alleging that opportunity to appellant was furnished, are in fact, pertaining to AY 2009-10 and not of AY 2016-17.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Order u/s 250 of the Act, directly dismissing the appeal, without affording any Opportunity of being Heard to the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the learned assessing officer levying tax on Deemed Short Term Capital Gain u/s 50 of the Act © @ 30% as against 20% as leviable under the Law without adjudicating on the said ground raised by Appellant. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, rate of Tax ought to have been charged should be 20% as specified u/s 112 of the Act as against 30% charged by Assessing officer.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, said rate of tax applied i.e. @30% is bad in law and thus, Order dismissing the Appeal filed u/s 250 of the Act on the said Ground is bad in law deserves to be quashed.
2. During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has brought it to the notice of the Bench that the appeal order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 but all the facts and figures are mentioned that of A.Y. 2009-10. In view of the above glaring mistake, the Ld. AR of the appellant has requested the Bench to remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication on all matters raised for A.Y. 2016-17 and pass the order after giving an opportunity to the appellant.
The Ld. DR did not object to the same.
Accordingly, after hearing the rival submissions, the matter is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the appellant.
3 India Printing Works 5. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/03/2025.
More judgments on Section 50
- Karnavati Rolling Mills Private Limited… vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Edwise International Prop Edwise… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce…ITA 4878/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Mohammed Afzal & Bros, Ahmedabad vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1159/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Aquarius Transnational, Mumbai vs ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar BhawanITA 5553/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Sudesh Synthetic Mills Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), SuratITA 739/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
