Ita 474/2016Janak Raj Arora v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9„

-$~12&.13*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . * + ITA 474/2016JANAK RAJ ARORA PROP.KWALITY TEXTILES Appellant Versus , ' PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9„... Respondent + ITA 475/2016 SIKANDER LAL KUMAR PRO.M/S SIKANDER LAL RAKESHKUMAR & CO. ' Appellant ' Appellant: - .Versus ; ; PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9..... Respondent-Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. SomilAgarwal, Mr. Rohit Kurnar Gupta and.- Ms. Mpnika Ghai, Advocates for-theAppellants.-Mr. Ashok, K. Manchanda, SeniorStanding Counsel and Ms. LakshmiGurung, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRIORDER%07.12.2016 % 1. The appellants' grievance is that even while directing the remand inthese cases, the ITAT has not applied its mind, in regard to the facts of thesetwo cases. It is pointed out that the grounds on which the Tribunal remitted,for consideration to the AO (in ITA No. 475/2016) are, in fact, related to theson i.e. who is an,appellant in ITA No. 474/2016 '(Janak Raj Arora). TheITAT after quoting the fmdings, viz-a-viz son Janak Raj Arpra, held in the: Case of father Shri. Sikander Lai Kumar that the lorder, required to, bererhitted. . Signature Not Verified ; 2. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that broadly the conclusions of theITAT with respect to the non-application of mind and the conjectural natureof findings by the CIT (A) cannot be disputed and that too much error in therecording of the orders cannot be made out of the orders recorded. 3. We have considered these submissions of the parties and also therecord. It is quite evident that apart from the egregious errors, which appearin record in paras 23-25 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has alsorecorded inconsistent directions. At one place, it remitted the matter forconsideration to the AO whereas in another, it remanded the matter to theCIT (A) [para 44]. 4. Having regard to these circumstances, impugned orders are hereby setaside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration and judgment to theITAT, which shall proceed further in the appeal after giving due notice tothe parties. , ' 5. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. DECEMBER 07, 2016sb [I WAZIRI, J.