AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed in appeal No 91/2010-11 (Old A.No 90/2009-10, CIT(A)-XXIX) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2018-19, pertaining to assessment order dated 25.02.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 19.03.2025. The case of the assessee was with regard to a claim of material lost in transit amounting to Rs. 2,73,29,510/-. The said claim was not accepted in the above order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which vide order dated 03 December, 2025 in ITA No. 572/2025 in the case of UTStarcom Inc V ADIT Intl Cit 31 New Delhi, restored back the matter to the file of the Tribunal for a fresh consideration/ decision. The relevant extract of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is reproduced as under:
“1.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) lays a challenge to order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee/appellant.
2.The challenge by the Assessee/appellant was primarily to an order passed by the CIT Appeals XXV, New Delhi in case No. 91/2010-11 dated 30.09.2013, in proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act.
3.The submissions of Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the appellant primarily is that the order of the Tribunal is a cryptic non speaking and it does not even record and adjudicate the contentions of the appellant as submitted by way of written submissions dated 08.10.2024. He states that though he has other submissions to make on the merit of the challenge made before the ITAT, he shall be satisfied if the matter is remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh consideration of the appeal being ITA No. 188/Del/2014 relatable to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue states that he has instructions to state that the Revenue has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
5.Noting the above submissions, the order 19.03.2025 is set aside. The appeal being ITA No. 188/Del/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07 is revived on the Board of the ITAT for a fresh consideration/decision.
6.The appeal is disposed of.”
At the outset, the ld AR submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer as the matter requires factual verification regarding claim of the assessee of material lost in transit amounting to Rs. 2,73,29,510/-. The ld AR further submitted that the revenue on the said goods was already offered as income and made an alternate prayer for the first time before us that the cost of the said goods sold may be examined by the AO and may be allowed.
Ld Sr (DR) while supporting the order of the lower authorities did not raise any serious objection to the matter being set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Upon careful consideration of the issue involved in this appeal, we are of the considered view that the fresh claim of the assessee made before us requires factual verification. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh, keeping in view our above observations and decide the matter in accordance with law. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.