Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs Raj Enterprises Ay… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs Raj Enterprises Ay… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Appellant-Revenue; appeal dismissed with no costs, with all contentions on the merits expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT(A) during the de-novo proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A against the ITAT's remand order. +1 more

Court's answer

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal as sought to be canvassed by the Appellant-Revenue.

Ratio / Principle

Since the ITAT merely remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration on the ground that the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2016-2017 was an ex parte order, no fault can be found with the order of the ITAT.

Key takeaways

The order passed by the ITAT does not warrant any interference.ratio¶20
All contentions of the Appellant-Revenue and the Respondent-Assessee on the merits of the matter are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT(A) during the de-novo proceedings directed by the ITAT.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.; order per Aarti Sathe, J), Income Tax Appeal No. 213 of 2024, decided 11 June 2026: The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the ITAT's order dated 23 May 2023, by which the matter for AY 2016-17 was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration (the CIT(A)'s earlier order being ex parte), with directions to consider the ITAT's decision pertaining to AY 2011-12 and to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Holding that the ITAT had merely remanded the matter, the Court found no fault with the ITAT's order, held that no substantial question of law arose and that the order did not warrant interference. All contentions of both parties on the merits were expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT(A) during the de-novo proceedings. Appeal dismissed; no costs.

14-ITXA-213-24.DOC

JYOTI RAJESH MANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.06.12 13:02:40 +0530

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.213 OF 2024

Pr. Commisioner of Income Tax Central – I, Mumbai.

...Appellant

Versus

Raj Enterprises

...Respondents

Mr. Akhileshkumar Sharma, for Appellant.

Mr. Madhur Agrawal, i/b. Mr, Atul K. Jasani, for Respondent.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 11^th June 2026

ORDER ( Per: Aarti Sathe, J):

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant–Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the order dated 23^rd May 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”). By the said order, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] for de-novo consideration and directed the CIT(A) to take into consideration the decision of the ITAT pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, while deciding the issues involved in the Assessment Year involved in the present Appeal, after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondent–Assessee. The assessment year involved is AY 2016–17.

Page 1 of 2

Mane

14-ITXA-213-24.DOC

We are of the view that, since the ITAT has merely remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) for A.Y.2016-2017 is an ex parte order, no fault can be found with the order of the ITAT. Most certainly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Appeal as sought to be canvassed by the Appellant– Revenue.

In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the ITAT does not warrant any interference and does not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring consideration in the present Appeal.

All contentions of the Appellant–Revenue and the Respondent–Assessee on the merits of the matter are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT(A) during the de-novo proceedings as directed by the ITAT.

In view thereof, the Revenue's Appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 2 of 2

Mane