ITO, WARD-1, ROHTAK, ROHTAK V. DIDA BROTHERS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, ROHTAK

MA 366/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rohtak, against DIDA Brothers Company Pvt. Ltd. The application contended that there was an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's previous order regarding the restoration of the case to the AO instead of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Tribunal had to decide whether the restoration to the AO was a mistake and if it needed correction. The Tribunal heard arguments from both the assessee's counsel and the Senior Departmental Representative (DR) and concluded that the restoration to the AO was correct and there was no mistake in the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827877 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. 366/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 5277/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Rohtak Vs. DIDA Brothers Company Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 4, Dida Building, Near Giriraj Complex, Hissar Road, Rohtak PAN: AAECD5981E (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: The Present Miscellaneous application has been filed stating that it appears from the observation in para No. 6 of the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the ITAT Delhi that the matter has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), but the same has been restored to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Hence, it appears to be apparent mistake on the face of the record and accordingly, the application has been filed by the department/ revenue. Applicant by Sh. Navin Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 366/Del/2025 DIDA Brothers Company Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. We have heard the Ld. AR for the assessee and the Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue/appellant. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset, submitted that the MA is not maintainable because the file has been rightly restored to the AO which is evident from the contents of para No. 4 of the order of the Tribunal. The ld. AR for the assessee has referred the para No. 4 of the order extracted below as under: - “4. The books of account and evidences were not examined, which is required for the disposal the issue. In the impugned order the Learned CIT(A) observed that books of accounts, bills and invoices have not filed properly to explain the purchase and sales and the same has not been before the Learned AO as the computer was hacked.” 3. We have considered these submissions and examined the records. The contents of para No. 4, extracted above very lucidly explain that the matter was required to be restored to the AO, and the same has rightly been done so. Therefore, we do not find any apparent mistake on the face of the record which requires to be rectified by this Tribunal. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09 January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.01.2026 Binita, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to the: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 366/Del/2025 DIDA Brothers Company Pvt. Ltd. 3 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. Sr. DR, New Delhi Asstt. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "