AMBARNUJ FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps could not be ruled out and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arose against the order of the CIT(A) in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was unable to present facts due to communication gaps in lower appellate proceedings, warranting restoration of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/s Ambarnuj Finance and Vs DCIT, Investments Pvt. Ltd., B-243, Northex Central Circle-26, Mall, Sector-9, Rohini Court, New Delhi-110055 Rohini, Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACA5799F Assessee by : Ms. Shilpi Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10595/2013-14 dated 18.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file 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 appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels 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 instant appeal 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