MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1047/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action of restoring the matter back to the AO for a denovo assessment. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the individual grounds of appeal, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had set aside the assessment to the AO for denovo assessment without adjudicating the grounds. The primary issue was an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment to the AO for denovo assessment without adjudicating the appeal grounds. The legality of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 and the addition under Section 69 were also contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69,Section 144,Section 251(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी िवजय वमा� , लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. VIJAY VARMA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1047/Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mukesh Kumar Sharma बनाम The ITO 3345, Sector 32, Chandigarh-160032 Ward 5(5) Chandigarh �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AMLPS9906N अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/08/2026 आदेश/Order PER VIJAY VARMA, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 25/03/2026 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10120856. 2. In this appeal the appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10120856 has erred in passing order dtd. 25.03.2026 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the ground against action of Ld. AO where he had erred in initiating u/s 148 and then continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 147 when such initiation as well as its continuation and conclusion was illegal and void-ab-initio and hence the impugned assessment deserved to be quashed.

3.

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the ground against action of the Ld. AO in initiating the impugned assessment u/s 148 even when the basis of re-opening do not pertain to A.Y. 2013-14. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the ground against action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69, without properly appreciating that no such investment was made by the appellant during the year under consideration, thereby rendering the impugned addition unsustainable in law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has grossly erred in setting aside the impugned assessment to the Ld. AO without properly appreciating, considering and adjudicating the explanations and evidences furnished by the appellant, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable in law. 6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by the Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been framed in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

3.

The only issue involved in this appeal the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- being unexplained investment in immovable property. There has been no compliance in respect of various notices and show cause notice issued by the AO and the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act. There has been no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) also and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) send the matter back to the AO exercising his powers under section 251 (1) of the Act.

4.

Since the Ld. CIT(A) has already sent the matter back to the AO for doing a denovo assessment and did not adjudicate the individual grounds of appeal, we do not find any infirmity in the said order therefore the action of the Ld.

CIT(A) in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO for making denovo assessment is upheld.

5.

In the result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 11/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- लिलत कुमार िवजय वमा� (LALIET KUMAR) (VIJAY VARMA) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →