KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the assessee's representative argued for the restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, which the Departmental Representative did not object to. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which had dismissed their appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and included an addition under Section 50C. The assessee argued that the assessment order was illegal and passed without proper opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and considering relevant facts and materials, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 50C,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 254(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as to “the Ld. CIT(A)”]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 27.07.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: -
“1. BECAUSE the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is illegal, bad in law and without juri iction as the same was passed in pursuance of notice u/s 148 issued by the ITO-1(1), Bareilly, who was not validly vested with the juri iction of t
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.
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 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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026