ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A)’s Remand Order and Directs Fresh Adjudication of Legal Grounds

Last updated: 05 August 2026

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has overturned a remand order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of Shashi Bala v. ITO. The ITAT followed a Delhi High Court ruling, which stated that legal or jurisdictional issues raised by an assessee should be decided by the CIT(A) directly, rather than remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the ITAT has directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal and adjudicate the legal grounds afresh.

Court :
AGRA

Brief :
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that had remanded the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the legal grounds raised by the assessee.

Citation :
ITA No. 426/Agr/2025

In the case of Shashi Bala v. ITO, the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for passing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee challenged the remand order before the ITAT. During the proceedings, reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court decision in Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd. v. PCIT, wherein it was held that when an infirmity arises at the level of the CIT(A), the issue should be decided by the CIT(A) itself and should not be remanded to the AO, particularly where jurisdictional or legal grounds have been raised by the assessee.

Following the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court, the ITAT observed that the legal grounds raised by the assessee required consideration by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and the observations made in the Akasaki Technology case.

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Key Takeaway: Where the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate legal or jurisdictional issues raised in an appeal, the matter should ordinarily be decided by the CIT(A) rather than being remanded to the Assessing Officer. An infirmity in the appellate proceedings should be addressed at the appellate level through fresh adjudication.

Disclaimer: This AI-generated summary is for informational purposes only. Please view the attached original judgment for the complete text and authoritative interpretation.

FAQ :

The case concerned a remand order by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer, which the assessee challenged before the ITAT.

The ITAT relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd. v. PCIT, which mandates that CIT(A) should decide legal or jurisdictional grounds themselves.

The ITAT set aside the order because the legal grounds raised by the assessee required adjudication by the CIT(A) rather than a remand to the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, considering the legal grounds and in line with the observations made in the Akasaki Technology case.

If an appeal involves legal or jurisdictional issues, the CIT(A) should address them directly rather than remanding the case to the Assessing Officer.