ITO WARD 1 WARDHA, WARDHA vs. TULSIRAM HIRANAND DULANI, WARDHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 187/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2025AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no perversity or impropriety in the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order and remand the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the issue needed fresh examination by the AO after considering the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2019-20. The assessee initially failed to provide documents regarding an unexplained expenditure of ₹96,19,872 under section 69C, leading to an assessment under sections 147, 144, and 144B. In the first appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted relevant documents, and the CIT(A) set aside the assessment order, remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the assessment order and remanding the case to the AO for fresh assessment to consider the assessee's submissions regarding unexplained expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL SHRI K.M. ROY

Hearing: 16.06.2025Pronounced: 16.06.2025

ITO, Ward–1, Wardha Tulsiram Hiranand Dulani, 1, Main Road, Hingnghat, Wardha–442301 vs. PAN : ACJPD 6437 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Mahavir Atal, Ld. CA For Revenue : Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 ORDER PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 21/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld. Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2019- 20.

2 ITA.No.187/NAG/2025 2. In this case, though the assessee during the assessment proceedings, failed to provide the relevant submissions and documents with regard to the unexplained expenditure of ` 96,19,872 u/sec. 69C of the Act, which resulted into passing the assessment order dated 24/01/2025 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, however, admittedly filed the relevant documents in the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, who after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, concluded that the issue needs to be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO") taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and consequently set aside the assessment order and referred back to the A.O. for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The Revenue failed to demonstrate as to how this order is perverse and suffers from impropriety. Even otherwise, we are unable to controvert the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed.

3.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →