AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:
The present appeal arises from order dated 17.12.2025, passed under section 250 r/w section 260 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by ld. CIT(A) /NFAC (Delhi).
This case has some important surrounding factors which deserve to be briefly mentioned. In this matter, the ld. AO passed an order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, dated 15.12.2019, making an addition of Rs. 55,33, 289/- under section 68 of the Act and another addition of Rs. 83,000/- under section 69C of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee approached the ld. CIT (Appeal) for settling his grievance, with considerable number of new documents / evidences. The ld. CIT (A) passed an order dated 13.03.2025 after confirming additions of Rs. 15.50 lakhs on account of M/s Aalishan Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 40,33,289/- in respect of sale of plot to one Sheel Jhamb. The assessee got relief of Rs. 83,000/- made on account of alleged commission paid. The assessee was aggrieved with this order, as according to him, his submissions were not given due weightage and thus he approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.09.2025 [W.P.(C)13944/2025], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court gave the following directions:
“4.If that be so, we set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 and remand to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to pass a fresh order, after giving a hearing to the petitioner through its representative by informing the date and time through the email. The aforesaid process including the hearing shall be completed by the Revenue within a period of six weeks from today, as an outer limit.”
2 Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the ld. CIT (A) / NFAC, before whom the assessee filed a copy of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order (vide submissions dated 04.10.2025). However, admittedly, within the mandated six-week period expiring on 05.11.2025, the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) were not concluded. It is seen that the ld. CIT (A) acknowledged the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order only vide their notice dated 01.12.2025. It is stated by the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard, and that the order was passed on 17.12.2025, through which the additions confirmed/deleted in the first round of the appellate proceedings were dittoed [Rs. 40,33,289/-; Rs. 15.50 lakhs; and deleting the addition of Rs. 83,000/-]. Effectively, the findings recorded in the first round of appellate order were repeated once again.
Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds of appeal running into at least seven pages, which are seen to be argumentative and not strictly in accordance with ITAT Rules. Needless to say, the assessee had challenged the impugned order on ground of denial of opportunity and also on ground of not adhering to the time-lines directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s Order (supra). Before us, the ld. AR took us through the history of this case right from the time of the AO’s order and has pointed out that the grievance of the assessee in spite, of a clear direction from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, has not been settled by adjudicating on the facts leading to a fair decision on the merits of the case. The ld. AR stated that instead of approaching the Hon’ble Delhi High Court with their grievance, they have filed the present appeal and she requested that appropriate orders may be passed with directions to the ld. CIT (A) for adjudicating on the merits of the case.
The ld. DR briefly took us through the ld. AO’s and the ld. CIT (A)’s orders and thereafter was content to rely on the same for the findings thereon.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order. We have also examined at length the documents filed before us. It is clear that the impugned order is contemptuous of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court since neither has the time limit of six weeks been adhered to nor have the assessee’s contentions been duly considered. Be that as it may be, it is felt that the facts have to be thrashed out at the first appellate stage so that there can be a fair appreciation of the same for determining the correct income of the assessee. Due to lack of fact finding at the first appellate stage we feel constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. However, we do not want that the assessee suffers through another round of proceedings which do not yield the desire result of examination of facts and, thus, we deem it fit to direct the Principal Chief Commissioner, NFAC, Delhi to personally monitor the progress of this adjudication so that it is completed within 8 weeks from the date on which this order is received by the concerned administrative authority. We may remind that the authorities concerned need to be sensitive about avoiding contemptuous behavior in future.
In result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.