Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2014-15, declaring income of Rs. 2,13,130. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 to verify investments. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to assessment u/s 147, determining total income at Rs. 303,85,075. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be more vigilant and ensure requisite compliance.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after considering documents submitted by the assessee, who failed to comply with earlier notices.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 148A, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT.RENU JAUHRI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 22.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“Ground 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,01,71,945/-made by Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the cash deposits as unexplained investment.
Ground 2: The order made under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer is bad-in- law, ultra virus and without appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective and is liable to be annulled. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Additional Grounds: Additional Ground No.
01. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the said notice is void ab initio since it does not bear any Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by the Circular No. 19/2019 issued by the CBDT. Additional Ground No.
02. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the said notice was issued by the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in contravention of the faceless scheme and notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Notification no. 18 of 2022. Additional Ground No.
03. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as valid without appreciating the fact that the prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act was granted in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 31.03.2016 declaring income of Rs. 2,13,130/-. In order to verify the source of huge investments made by the assessee, as per information available with the department a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28.04.2021. Subsequently, following the directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors V. Ashish Agarwal ( Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022) the assessee was provided copy of the reasons recorded and the information relied upon and an opportunity was given to him vide letter dated 26.05.2022 to submit his reply within two weeks. As there was no response, an order u/s. 148A(d) alongwith a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 22.07.2022.
As the assessee failed to comply to multiple notices issued by the ld. AO, assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act determining total income of Rs. 303,85,075/- vide order dated
18.05.2023. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld.
CIT(A) who dismissed the same vide order dated 22.10.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could not file requisite documentary evidences before the ld. AO, which have now been placed before us in the form of a paperbook. He has requested for remanding the matter to ld. AO for verification of these documents. Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and make requisite compliance before the ld. JAO.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 21.11.2025