JUBILIANT ENPRO (P) LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3197/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 February 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order, which mandates the framing of points of determination followed by detailed adjudication. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the assessee's appeals and restore them to the CIT(A) for fresh and appropriate adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Ashok Kumar, has filed three appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders of the CIT(A), Delhi-31. These appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The impugned orders were passed in proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps at various levels, the assessee was unable to appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The assessee requested that the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) order is sustainable in light of alleged communication gaps preventing the assessee from presenting all facts? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and effective adjudication). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that communication gaps at various levels hindered their ability to appear and prove all relevant facts before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fair hearing and adjudication in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. &
Hearing: 25.09.2025Pronounced: 25.09.2025

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 3195/Del/2025
ITA No. 3196/Del/2025
ITA No. 3197/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

These assessee’s three appeals in 3196 & 3197/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17, arise against the CIT(A), Delhi-31’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1075248228(1), 1075246989(1) & 1075247558(1) all dated 29.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not 3196 & 3197/Del/2025 Ashok Kumar appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).

4.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s all appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →