JAI SHREE BALAJI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Ld. CIT(A), relying on amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2024 to Section 251, set aside the ex-parte assessment to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity to the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it just and proper in light of the statutory amendments, thereby dismissing the assessee's appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessment was reopened under Section 147/148 against Jai Shree Balaji Builders Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2012-13, adding Rs. 2,21,24,708/- as undisclosed income from contractual receipts under Section 94H/94C. This ex-parte assessment under Section 144 was challenged by the assessee, arguing the Section 148 notice was invalid as the company was struck off from the ROC, thus non-existent.
What were the issues?
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 against a company already struck off from the ROC. 2. Propriety of the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 to the AO for fresh assessment under the amended provisions of Section 251 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 94H,Section 94C,Section 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward 13(2), New Delhi, under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Brief facts leading to the case is this that the proceeding under Section 147/148 was initiated by the recording reasons and upon taking necessary approval from the competent authority notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. No return in response to the said notice was filed by the assessee. It is found that the assessee had contractual receipts of Rs.2,21,24,708/- under Section 94H as income from commission or brokerage and under Section 94C as contractors etc. in support of notice being sent to the assessee no compliance was made and as per the individual transactions statement (ITS) in 26AS assessee received a sum of Rs.2,21,24,708/- as above has been treated as undisclosed/unexplained income of the assessee and added in the hands of the assessee.
Such order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on account of reasons that the company was struck off from ROC w.e.f 06.07.2017 and therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act issued upon a non-existent company is not valid.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call. It appears from the record that previously on very many occasions the assessee did not appear. The Ld. First Appellate Authority came to a finding that various facts mentioned by the assessee were not properly appreciated by the Ld. AO neither considered that the entire credits cannot be assessed as income of the appellant etc. Having regard to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2024 to Section 251 wherein power to set aside the issue to the Ld. AO has been given to the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment completed under Section 144 of the Act w.e.f 01.10.2024, the Ld. CIT(A) has been pleased to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for re-adjudication of the matter with the following observations:
“9.4 As regards the other grounds related to the addition on merits of the case, I have considered the assessment order and find that the assessment has been completed u/s 144. It is also seen that the various facts mentioned by the appellant have not been properly appreciated by the AO before making the above additions. The AO has also not considered that the entire credits cannot be assessed as income of the appellant, may be the same was done on account of noncompliance of the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Various judicial pronouncements have consistently held that the issue of giving opportunity and hearing to the appellant, is vital for the assessment of income arrived at by the Assessing Officer and the same has to be also used by the appellant by providing proper submissions and not only as a dilatory tactic so that the issue of not giving the proper opportunity should not be raised at a subsequent level.
9.5 It is worthwhile to point out that by Finance Act 2024, amendment has been made to section 251 wherein power of set-aside has been given to CIT(A) for the assessments completed u/s.144 of the Act, with effect from 01-10-2024. The relevant part of the amendment to section 251 is as under:
“Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;”.
9.6. Considering the facts of the case and the assessment order completed u/s.144 being under-challenge in the present appeal and the observations made above with respect to the grounds of appeal challenging the merits of the addition, to meet the ends of justice, I find it fit to set-aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer to complete the fresh assessment after giving proper opportunity and hearing to the appellant. The appellant is also directed to ensure that proper compliance and furnishing of the required documents is made during the set-aside assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. However, no decision is being given on the merits of the case to cause any prejudice on the same. Subject to the above decision to set-aside the assessment as discussed above, the other grounds of appeal are disposed off.”
5. Having regard to the facts of the matter as narrated as above and considering the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2024 allowing the CIT(A) to set aside the issue for assessment completed under Section 144 of the Act, the order impugned is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant inference. Hence, the same is upheld. The assessee’s appeal is, therefore, frivolous and hence, dismissed.
6. The appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
