M/S BHUPENDRA AUTOTECH INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARYANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have prevented the assessee from effectively presenting their case, and there was a lack of proper adjudication as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s common order for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17, arising from proceedings under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals should be remanded due to communication gaps and procedural irregularities in the lower appellate order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 M/s Bhupendra Autotech Industries Vs ACIT, (P) Ltd., F-1098, Basement, Central Circle-1, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCB8550H Assessee by : Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals in to 5828/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 26.08.2025 in case Nos. 10834 & 10014/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2013- 14 & 2017-18, in proceedings u/s 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower
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 twin 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 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
