SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,ROTHAK vs. ACIT, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5030/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's four appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2021-22 arose against the common order of the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, concerning proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The assessee argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented them from presenting all relevant facts.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) due to communication gaps and procedural deficiencies in the lower appellate order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 03.12.2025

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No. 5029/Del/2025
ITA No. 5030/Del/2025
ITA No. 5031/Del/2025
ITA No. 5032/Del/2025

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

Asstt. Year : 2019-20 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Vs ACIT, 182, New Grain Market, Central Circle-1, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BEHPK6112B Assessee by : Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s four appeals in to 5032/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2021-22, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 27.09.2024 in case Nos. 11268, 11544, 11942, 10832, 11059/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2014-15 to 2018-19, in proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

Delay of 262 days in filing of all these appeals are condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

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 appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).

5.

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 →