Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 03 ITAT CK 3188

DCIT vs Sh. Nitesh Purohit

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: ‘F’ New Delhi · Decided on 24 March 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.5681/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 196 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 04.06.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076707682(1), involving proceedings under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 15 days in filing the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s remand direction restoring the assessee’s corresponding substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of alleged commission etc.

4.

That being the case, we notice that the tribunal’s earlier learned coordinate bench’s order in assessee’s appeal ITA No. 5006/Del/2025 dated 28.11.2025 has already restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Faced with this situation, we hereby adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned CIT(A)’s impugned directions in very terms.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.