SANJAR BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), LUCKNOW

ITA 364/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 July 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not raised the issue of the return being treated as non-est before the CIT(A). However, the failure of the AO to provide reasons for reopening and afford an opportunity for objections was a valid ground. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to first examine the validity of the assessment on this ground before referring it back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 for AY 2014-15, believing income had escaped assessment due to unexplained investment in immovable property. The assessee filed a return late, which the AO treated as non-est and made a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A) set aside the AO's order and remanded the case back for fresh assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in remanding the case without first deciding the AO's failure to provide reasons for reopening and afford an opportunity for objections. Whether the assessee's late filing of return was justifiable due to COVID-19 and the death of a director's husband.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 69,Section 234A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC wherein the ld. CIT(A), vide his order dated 11.04.2025, has set aside the order of the ld. Assessing Officer passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 on 28.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Id. assessing officer has erred in law in treating the return filed by the appellant as non est.

2.

The Id. assessing officer has erred in law in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. The Id. assessing officer has erred in law in assessing the case u/s 144. 4. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC has erred in law and facts

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →