MCG MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,ZAKIR NAGAR, SOUTH EAST DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, was duty-bound to decide the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee before adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding the jurisdictional grounds before considering the additions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee's appeal was based on grounds challenging the validity of reopening. The CIT(A) had restored the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh assessment without deciding the jurisdictional issues.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in restoring the case to the AO without deciding the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal713 citing469 ITR 46 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y. 2017-18) MCG Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd., 169, Sukhdev Vihar, New Friends Colony, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant S.O Zakir Nagar, Delhi 110025 PAN: AAJCM-4917-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), ..... �ितवादी/Respondent CR Building, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Amit Goyal, Chartered Accountant & Ankit Garg, Advocate �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 13/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Shri Pranav Yadav, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme of India in the case of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC). He further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist)
(AY 2017-18) vs. Income Tax Department in WP(C) 9031/2023 dated 28.04.2025 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued within the period of limitation under the Act. He prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of assessment orders shows that the same has been passed in ex-parte proceedings. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 12.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee in first appeal inter alia assailed validity of assessment proceedings on the ground of invalid notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The CIT(A) without adjudicating jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee, restored the case back to Assessing Officer (AO) for making fresh assessment. A perusal of impugned order reveals that ground no. 1 to 6 of appeal before the CIT(A) relate to jurisdictional issue challenging validity of reopening. The CIT(A) evaded the issue and has restored the case to AO. When the assessee has raised a specific jurisdictional issue, the CIT(A) being a quasi jurisdictional authority was duty bound to decide the same before adjudicating the ground on merits of the addition. It is only when the AO assumes valid jurisdiction, the gate to make additions/disallowances is open to the AO. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding jurisdictional grounds i.e. ground no. 1 to 6 of appeal [before the CIT(A)] before taking up the ground on merits of the addition. The CIT(A) shall decide the appeal of assessee (AY 2017-18) denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 13th day of August, 2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026