SH PRAKASH NARAYAN AGRAWAL ,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2 , GWALIOR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had affirmed the Assessing Officer's action without ensuring compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination before adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) had affirmed the Assessing Officer's action of adding Rs. 20,545/- as short-term capital gain and Rs. 61,90,598/- as business income from the sale of shares.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) followed the due procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act before adjudicating the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1042155215(1) dated 30.03.202, involving proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Prakash Narayan Agrawal
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing officer’s action adding Rs.20,545/- as short term capital gain and holding profits from sale of shares of Rs.61,90,598/- as business income than capital gains, in the course of assessment framed on 06.03.2014, without having ensured compliance to Section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to first frame the points of determination than followed by speaking adjudication thereof.
That being the case, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026