ANKIT CHAUDHARY ,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO,WARD 3(1)(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to consider all submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and pass a fresh order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) allegedly erred by not considering all submissions made by the assessee, specifically overlooking submissions dated 05.02.2021 and 04.05.2022 while only taking into account those from 31.08.2022 and 11.11.2022.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering all relevant submissions and evidences filed by the assessee during the appeal proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ankit Chaudhary, Vs ITO, C/o Ashish Agarwal, Advocate, Ward 3(1)(2), Raj Complex, Arya Samaj Road, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh - 251001. PAN: AGZPC0818R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prem Prakash, & Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocates Revenue by : Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This is appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.12.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar/10148/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the ld. AR that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions of the assessee filed on 05.02.2021 and 04.05.2022 and the submissions of 31.08.2022 only were taken into consideration. It comes up that in para 4.2, the ld. CIT(A) mentions that the submissions dated 31.08.2022 and 11.11.2022 have been filed which have been considered.
In the light of the aforesaid, the issue is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to consider the submissions of the assessee along with evidences filed and pass a fresh order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026