B P Ravikumar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Fresh Assessment After CIT(A)’s Directions: Can the Assessee Appeal Straight to the ITAT?
An assessee challenges an assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Following that appeal, the Assessing Officer (AO) passes a fresh assessment order. If the assessee remains aggrieved, can he appeal directly to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal because the fresh order was passed pursuant to the CIT(A)’s directions?
The Bengaluru ITAT answered no in B P Ravikumar v. ITO. It held that an order made by the AO remains an AO’s order, even when it follows directions in an earlier appellate order. Since the fresh assessment in this case was not an order directly appealable to the ITAT under section 253, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. It did not examine the additions on their merits.
How the case reached the Tribunal
For assessment year 2019–20, an assessment order was passed against B P Ravikumar on 20 March 2024 under section 147 read with section 144. He appealed to the CIT(A). As recorded in the ITAT’s order, the CIT(A) set aside that assessment and directed the AO to pass a fresh order.
The AO then passed a fresh assessment order on 6 March 2026, described as an order under section 147 read with sections 250 and 144. Ravikumar was dissatisfied with that order too. On 30 March 2026, he filed an appeal against it directly before the ITAT, without first appealing to the CIT(A) or other appropriate first appellate authority.
The Tribunal took up the question of maintainability before considering the assessee’s substantive grounds. The department argued that the impugned order was an assessment made by the AO and did not fall among the orders appealable directly to the ITAT. The assessee’s representative could not controvert that objection.
The order’s author determines the appellate route
The ITAT began with the principle that a right of appeal comes from the statute. An appellant must identify both an appealable order and the authority before which the Act permits an appeal against it.
Section 253 specifies the orders appealable to the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that an ordinary assessment or reassessment made by an AO is not, merely by virtue of being an assessment, directly appealable to the Tribunal. The usual route for an assessee aggrieved by an AO’s assessment is an appeal before the appropriate first appellate authority under the provisions governing such appeals, including section 246A.
Ravikumar’s argument for approaching the ITAT directly could not be supported simply by pointing to the earlier CIT(A) order. The direction to make a fresh assessment explained why the AO acted again; it did not change who passed the new order. The assessment dated 6 March 2026 was still the AO’s order. It did not become an order of the CIT(A) because it was passed in consequence of the CIT(A)’s directions.
Why the direct appeal exception did not help
The Tribunal also considered the specific exception in section 253(1)(d). That provision permits a direct appeal to the ITAT against certain assessment orders passed by an AO in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
That was not Ravikumar’s situation. The fresh assessment followed directions of the CIT(A), not the DRP. The Bench therefore held that the statutory exception for DRP cases could not be applied to this assessment.
This distinction controlled the result. Two assessment orders may both follow directions issued during an earlier proceeding, yet their appeal routes depend on the particular provision under which those directions were issued. The ITAT would not assume direct appellate jurisdiction where section 253 did not provide it.
The appeal was dismissed without a decision on the additions
The ITAT held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the grounds on their merits in an appeal filed directly against this fresh AO order. It dismissed Ravikumar’s appeal as not maintainable.
The Bench expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or other issues arising from the fresh assessment. Its ruling was confined to the appellate route. A reader should therefore not treat the dismissal as approval of the AO’s computation or findings.
The order identifies the appropriate course as a challenge to the fresh assessment before the competent first appellate authority, in accordance with the Act. It does not decide any question about limitation or condonation in such an appeal.
Author’s comment
This is a useful reminder that “passed pursuant to an appellate order” is not itself a ground for appealing to the ITAT. After a fresh assessment, the practitioner must read the new order: who passed it, under which provisions, and whether section 253 specifically permits a direct appeal against that category of order.
Here, the reference to section 250 in the fresh assessment did not transform it into the CIT(A)’s order. The AO remained its author, and the directions came from the CIT(A) rather than the DRP. Those facts sent the assessee back to the first appellate stage.
The practical consequence is serious even though the Tribunal made no adverse finding on the tax dispute. Filing before the wrong forum can consume time while the assessment issues remain unheard. This decision settles where the challenge must begin, leaving the correctness of the fresh assessment open for the forum with jurisdiction to decide it.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The assessee has filed the present appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 against the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 250 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, “the Act”) vide order dated 06.03.2026.
2. Before going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, it is necessary to first examine whether the present appeal filed directly before the Tribunal against the said assessment order is maintainable.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For A.Y. 2019-20, an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 20.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. Pursuant to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the AO passed a fresh assessment order dated 06.03.2026 u/s 147 r.w.s. 250 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said fresh assessment order, the assessee, instead of preferring an appeal before the first appellate authority, directly filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 30.03.2026.
4. At the time of hearing, the maintainability of the present appeal was taken up for consideration. The Ld. DR submitted that the order impugned before the Tribunal is an assessment order passed by the AO and the same is not an order directly appealable before the Tribunal u/s 253 of the Act. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable. The Ld. AR also failed to controvert the argument of the ld. DR for the Revenue.
5. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The short issue before us is whether the fresh assessment order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 250 r.w.s. 144 of the Act can be directly challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal.
5.1 The right of appeal is a statutory right. An appeal can therefore be preferred only against an order which the statute specifically makes appealable before the concerned appellate authority. Section 253 of the Act specifies the orders against which an appeal can be preferred before the Tribunal. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in appeal has to be examined with reference to the orders specifically covered by the said provision.
5.2 On going through the provisions of section 253(1) of the Act, we find that an ordinary assessment or reassessment order passed by the AO is not, by itself, directly appealable before the Tribunal. Section 253(1)(d) of the Act does provide for a direct appeal against an order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), section 147, section 153A or section 153C of the Act, but only where such order has been passed in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The present case does not fall within that category. The order dated 06.03.2026 has been passed pursuant to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and not pursuant to any directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Therefore, the said exception has no application to the present case. Section 253(1) of the Act specifically enumerates the orders appealable before the Tribunal.
5.3 In the present case, the original assessment order dated 20.03.2024 was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) who set aside the assessment and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. In consequence thereof, the AO passed the impugned fresh assessment order dated 06.03.2026. Merely because the fresh assessment order has been passed pursuant to the directions contained in an appellate order does not convert the fresh assessment order of the AO into an order of the Ld. CIT(A). It remains an order passed by the AO. Therefore, if the assessee is aggrieved by the additions or findings contained in the fresh assessment order dated 06.03.2026, the statutory remedy is to challenge the said order before the appropriate first appellate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Income Tax provision also states that an assessee aggrieved by an order of the AO may file an appeal before the JCIT(A)/CIT(A), and section 246A of the Act specifies the orders appealable before the first appellate authority.
5.4 In the present case, however, the assessee has directly approached the Tribunal against the fresh assessment order dated 06.03.2026. Since the said assessment order does not fall within the category of orders directly appealable before the Tribunal u/s 253 of the Act, we have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in the present appeal.
5.5 In view of the above, we hold that the present appeal filed directly before the Tribunal against the assessment order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 250 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or other issues arising from the said assessment order. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Sept. 2026.
