ITO (TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR V. SECL, BILASPUR, MINES RESCUE STATIONS

ITA 296/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) against orders passed by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur, concerning non-deduction of TDS on certain expenses claimed as deductions under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was whether the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) had the power to remand issues for fresh adjudication to the assessing officer when the order challenged was not passed under section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) under section 251 of the Act, particularly in light of the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2024, which restricted the power to remand to cases where the order was passed ex-parte under section 144.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777254 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2025
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad, Computer Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Koreas India Ltd., Dilip Kumar Vs CCE, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ITAT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAAD KIDWAI LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR KHATRI LD.
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS
• Section: 144; 143(3); 11; 132; 133(6); 6; 12; 10; 2; 15; 201(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 16 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr ITA No. Asstt Yr TAN Appellant Respondent 1 ITA 275/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07664G ITO (TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur 2 ITA 276/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04886A DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Bhatagaon Area Branch 3 ITA 277/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00358B DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 4 ITA 278/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00359C DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Bilaspur 5 ITA 279/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02072A DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Raigarh 6 ITA 280/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02667A DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Kusmunda 7 ITA 281/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03398D DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 8 ITA 282/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02076E DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Raigarh 9 ITA 283/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02656D DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 10 ITA 284/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03804D DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Anuppur 11 ITA 285/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS06999G DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Bilaspur 12 ITA 286/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04697A DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 13 ITA 287/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04875D DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 14 ITA 288/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03090D DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 15 ITA 289/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS13157E DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Korba 16 ITA 290/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04617E DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Surguja 17 ITA 291/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00355F DCIT (TDS), Raipur SECL, Bilaspur 18 ITA 292/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07658A ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, West JKD Colliery 19 ITA 293/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04966D ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, Hasdeo Haldibadi 20 ITA 294/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07660C ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, JKD, Sub Area, west JKD 21 ITA 295/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07666B ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur 22 ITA 296/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07665A ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, Mines Rescue stations 23 ITA 297/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS11724G ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, Gharghoda 24 ITA 298/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07569B ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, West JKD Colliery 25 ITA 299/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07663F ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur 26 ITA 300/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07662E ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, West Jhaggrakhand 27 ITA 301/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07667C ITO(TDS), Bilaspur SECL, Bilaspur, Hasdeo Area Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 16 Sr ITA No. Asstt Yr TAN Appellant Respondent 28 ITA 197/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07663F SECL, CHM Manendragarh, Korea ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 29 ITA 198/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07664G SECL North JKD, Korea ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 30 ITA 199/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07665A SECL, MRS, Manendragarh ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 31 ITA 200/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07666B SECL, Anuppur ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 32 ITA 201/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07667C SECL, South JKD, Korea ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 33 ITA 202/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04886A SECL, Bhatagaon , Surguja ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 34 ITA 203/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00359C SECL, Korba(East) Area ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 35 ITA 204/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00355F SECL, SECL Bhawan,Bilaspur ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 36 ITA 205/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04875D SECL, Gevra Project, Korba ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 37 ITA 206/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS13157E SECL, Dipka ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 38 ITA 207/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02656D SECL, CGM Office, Kusmunda ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 39 ITA 208/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04617E SECL, Surguja ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 40 ITA 209/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02667A SECL, Kusmunda ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 41 ITA 210/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04966D SECL, Raigarh ITO/ACIT/DCIT, (TDS), Bilaspur 42 ITA 211/RPR/2025 2017-18 BPLS04697A SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 43 ITA 212/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS11724G SECL, Bilaspur ITO(TDS), Bilaspur 44 ITA 213/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03090D SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 45 ITA 214/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03804D SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 46 ITA 215/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS06999G SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 47 ITA 216/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07658A SECL, Bilaspur ITO(TDS), Bilaspur 48 ITA 217/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07662E SECL, Bilaspur ITO(TDS), Bilaspur 49 ITA 218/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07660C SECL, Bilaspur ITO(TDS), Bilaspur 50 ITA 219/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS07659B SECL, Bilaspur ITO(TDS), Bilaspur 51 ITA 220/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02072A SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 52 ITA 221/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS02076A SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 53 ITA 222/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS03398D SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur 54 ITA 223/RPR/2025 2017-18 JBPS00358B SECL, Bilaspur DCIT(TDS), Raipur Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 16 Appearances Assessee by: Mr Vinod kumar Khatri [Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr Saad Kidwai [Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing: 18/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 ORDER PER BENCH; The captioned bunch of first twenty-seven appeals of the Revenue and even number of cross appeals by the assessee challenges respective orders passed by Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-1, Gurugram [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which in turn emanated out of separate orders passed u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act by Asstt./Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Raipur [‘Ld. AO’] all anent to assessment year 2017-18[‘AY’]. 2. The common, limited & solitary question/issue dealt with in these appeals seeks to answer ‘as to whether first appellate authority has a power to remand any issue for fresh adjudication to assessing officer where the order challenged in first appeal is passed otherwise than u/s 144 of the Act? Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 16 3. Since facts involved in this bunch of cross appeals and limited issue to be dealt herein is common & identical, on rival party’s request these cross appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by common & consolidated order. In adjudicating the former common issue/question we shall deal with Sr. 1 in ITA No 275/RPR/2025 as lead case and our adjudication laid hereinafter thus shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining cross appeals as tabulated & captioned hereinbefore. 4. Briefly stated common facts of the case are that; 4.1 The assessee South Eastern Coalfields Limited, is Central Government’s a Mini Ratna Unlisted Public Sector Company headquartered at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh[‘SECL’]. The assessee is primarily engaged in mining and production of Coal. The assessee being deductor of tax is responsible to collect and deduct tax at sources [TDS’] under the provision of the Act. The assessee is regular in fling periodic TDS returns in prescribed Form No. 24Q, 26Q and 27EQ etc., in accordance with the Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 5 of 16 procedure laid down for the purpose under the Act. For the year under consideration the assessee maintained regular books & records and are as required u/s 44AA of the Act subjected to tax audit in terms of section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also debited an expense of ₹48.25 Cr. under the head ‘Grant to Schools and Institutes’, and claimed such expenses as deduction 37(1) of the Act without making TDS deduction therefrom. 4.3 In order to verify applicability of TDS provisions and consequential liabilities against such identified expenses claimed as deduction, a proposal was sent for approval u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, which was approved vide letter F. Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 16 No. CIT(TDS)/BPL/133(6)/2023-24 dt 03/11/2023. Accordingly, vide notice u/s 133(6) of the Act dt 06/11/2023 the assessee called upon to furnish full details of expenses incurred, debited and claimed as expenses under the head Power & Township expenses and Grant to Schools and Institutes. 4.4 The details submitted during the course of proceedings by the assessee revealed to the Ld. AO that; while debiting former twin expenses or payment made there against and while claiming deduction there against the assessee company failed to deduct TDS therefrom. For the reasons the assessee, without prejudice any other consequence held as assessee in default in respect of such non-deduction deduction u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 192 r.w.s. 17 of the Act. In consequence thereof the Ld. AO determined the liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act separately in relation to twenty-seven (27) Tax Deduction Account Number[‘TAN’] held by the assessee for various location as under; Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 7 of 16 Date Penalty/ Tax levied u/s 201 of the Act Interest levied 201(1A) of the Act Total Demand 1 JBPS07663F 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 2 JBPS07664G 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 3 JBPS07665A 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 4 JBPS07666B 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 5 JBPS07667C 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 6 BPLS04886A 27/03/2024 2,88,78,698 2,42,58,106 5,31,36,804 7 JBPS00359C 27/03/2024 3,63,69,242 3,05,50,163 6,69,19,404 8 JBPS00355F 27/03/2024 1,09,68,300 92,13,372 2,01,81,672 9 BPLS04875D 27/03/2024 33,73,869 28,34,050 62,07,919 10 JBPS13157E 27/03/2024 33,73,869 28,34,050 62,07,918 11 JBPS02656D 27/03/2024 1,41,27,187 1,18,66,837 2,59,94,024 12 BPLS04617E 27/03/2024 3,75,20,982 3,15,17,625 6,90,38,607 13 JBPS02667A 27/03/2024 1,41,27,188 1,18,66,838 2,59,94,025 14 BPLS04966D 30/03/2024 37,64,587 31,62,252 69,26,839 15 BPLS04697A 27/03/2024 2,79,14,729 22,80,371 49,95,101 16 JBPS11724G 30/03/2024 37,64,587 3162252 69,26,839 17 JBPS03090D 27/03/2024 27,14,729 22,80,371 49,95,101 18 JBPS03804D 27/03/2024 53,27,481 44,75,084 98,02,565 19 JBPS06999G 27/03/2024 53,27,481 44,75,084 98,02,565 20 JBPS07658A 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 21 JBPS07662E 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 22 JBPS07660C 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 23 JBPS07659B 28/03/2024 49,03,952 41,19,319 90,23,271 24 JBPS02072A 27/03/2024 37,64,587 31,62,252 69,26,839 25 JBPS02076A 27/03/2024 37,64,587 31,62,252 69,26,839 26 JBPS03398D 27/03/2024 2,99,83,780 2,51,86,375 5,51,70,156 27 JBPS00358B 27/03/2024 1,41,27,188 1,18,66,838 2,59,94,025 Sr TAN Details of Assessment Order passed u/s 201 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 8 of 16 4.5 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals against each of such twenty-seven (27) orders passed u/s 201 of the Act, which were partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 28/02/2025. Against such separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), both the rival parties came in present bunch of cross appeals. 5. Without touching merits, we have heard the rival party’s common submission and argument on the limited issue of jurisdiction of first appellate authority in sparingly remanding common issues assailed by the assessee in ground 2c, 2d & 2e in Form No 35 and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on record and considered the facts in view of settled position of law which was forewarned to respective parties. Lead Case : ITA No. 275/RPR/2025 6. As we note that, against the DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1063568142(1) dt. 28/03/2024 passed u/s 201 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 14/04/2024 on as many as four grounds. While Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 9 of 16 adjudicating ground number 2 relating to non-deduction of TDS in respect of Power and Township Expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the submissions of the assessee and dismissed sub ground number 2(a), 2(b), 2(f) & 2(h) and whereas remaining connected sub grounds viz; 2(c), (d) & 2(e) sparingly returned to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to verify issues on merits and allow the relief after due verification. As jointly solidified by the rival parties, these sub grounds (a) to (h) of ground 2 assailed in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) were indisputably not only intrinsically but also interictally linked with each other. 7. As we note that, the order appealed in section 264A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication was the one which was passed u/s 201 of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, we have to vouch as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) had jurisdiction or power u/s 251 of the Act to remand any issue, ground or sub- ground to the file of Ld. AO for verification & granting relief where the order was not the one passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 10 of 16 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority is not vested with jurisdiction to remand any issue/subject or file back to the assessing officer for fresh or de-novo verification where order assailed in appeal is passed otherwise than u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, in case where the order appealed against in first appeal is passed otherwise than 144 of the Act, any action/direction of remand for fresh verification by the first appellate authority is therefore barred by jurisdiction. 9. The validity of action of the tax and appellate authorities which does not confirm with the provisions of statute came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ [1999, 8 SCC 266 (SC)], wherein their hon’ble lordships held that ‘if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner’. Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 11 of 16 10. In the present case, since the statute did provide no power to remand where the order appeal against was passed u/s 201 of the Act the first appellate authority therefore in view of former decision, the impugned remittance of sub-ground (c), (d) & (e) for verification of facts on merits a fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which was in force up to 30/09/2024 did not permit the first appellate authority to remand any issue or ground to the file of assessing officer at all. Au contraire the said provision obligated the first appellate authority to culminate first appeal conclusively either by confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the order appealed against. The proviso to clause (a) of s/s (1) of section 251 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act 2024 which came into effect 01/10/2024 however empowered the first appellate authority for referring an issue/file back to the assessing officer for de-novo assessment but only in cases where the assessment order appealed against Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 12 of 16 was framed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and not otherwise. That is to say the newly inserted proviso to clause (a) to s/s (1) of section 251 of the Act, while empowering first appellate authority to remand an issue or a file to assessing officer for verification a fresh has also attached invariable restriction on its operation. As such power to remand is operable only when the order assailed for adjudication in first appeal is framed u/s 144 of the Act. 11. The amended provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act w.e.f. 01/10/2024 clearly but inversely restricts the jurisdiction of first appellate authority in remanding any issue/file to assessing officer for fresh assessment. Going by stricter application / interpretation of law as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Koreas India Ltd.’ reported in AIR 1977 SC 132 and further in the landmark case of ‘Dilip Kumar Vs CCE’ reported 9 SCC 1 we are mindful to hold that, while dealing with the first appeals unless the order under challenge before the first appellate authority order is framed ex-parte by the assessing officer u/s 144 of the Act, any action of remanding any subject, Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 13 of 16 issue, ground or sub ground or file (as the case may be), for verification or reverification a fresh to the assessing officer shall be beyond the jurisdiction of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 12. Further insofar as the validity of remand ordered and impugned direction/action of Ld. CIT(A) dealing with sub- grounds variably where all other sub-grounds of main ground number 2 are intrinsically interconnected, interwoven and linked, we are mindful to note that on the similar issue the Ld. co-ordinate bench in ‘Computer Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT’ [2024, 163 taxmann.com 693] held that order dismissing all ground commonly based on single issue by disobeying the mandates of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act ceases to be lawful adjudication, therefore renders itself irregular. Thus, such adjudication is a fit case for remand. 13. Admittedly the impugned action of remand of few sub- grounds which where interconnected with remaining sub- grounds adjudicated conclusively by the Ld. CIT(A) are not only inconsonance with provisions of law but such action also out Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 14 of 16 done the restriction placed by proviso to clause (a) of s/s (1) of section 251 of the Act. The first appellate authority being creature of statutory therefore while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of law in discharging prescribed function was bound to act within the jurisdiction. In remanding few sub-grounds in relation to order assailed in our considered view the Ld. CIT(A) inadvertently assumed the powers not granted by the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 14. Any action, direction or adjudication laid by the appellate authority by travelling beyond the provisions of law or authority by law renders otiose for the purpose of the Act. This view finds fortified in the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of ‘Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ITAT [2009, 314 ITR 14 (Guj.)]. In this case while dealing with the powers of ITAT, their Hon’ble lordships have categorically held that, in adjudicating the matter in appeals the authority cannot travel beyond the provisions of law. Thus, such action is barred by jurisdiction and therefore stands vacated. Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 15 of 16 15. In the present case, the order challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) was an order passed u/s 201 of the Act and as such other than the order passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to remand any issue/ground or sub-ground of the first appeal to the file of Ld. AO for verification or reverification of merits a fresh. Per contra, the sub-ground (c), (d) & (e) of ground number 2 raised in Form No 35 before Ld. CIT(A) not only remained unadjudicated conclusively in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act but remanded to Ld. AO for de-novo verification on merits in contravention of provision of section 251 of the Act. 16. In view of the former judicial precedents, we are of considered opinion that, the impugned action relating to adjudication of sub-ground (c), (d) & (e) of ground number 2 suffered from jurisdiction as well as the compliance of s/s 251(1) r.w.s. 250(6) of the Act, for that reason without disturbing balance adjudication we set aside the remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a point-blank direction to dealt sub-ground (c), (d) & Printed from counselvise.com SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 ITAT-Raipur Page 16 of 16 (e) of ground number 2 of Form No. 35 and adjudicate them de- novo in accordance with law and for passing a speaking order. The Ground No 1 & 2 of the present appeal of the Revenue thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. On a similar line all remaining appeals filed by the Revenue also stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. In consequence our adjudication in Revenue’s appeal, all cross appeals filed by the assessee for the sake of completeness are also stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. The question framed hereinbefore stands adjudicated negatively. 17. In result, this bunch of cross appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963, the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 19th September, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench 6. Guard File //True Copy// By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "