JAMUNA, REP. BY SAMBASIVAM CHINNAPPAN, LEGAL HEIR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 18.11.2025 Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The Impugned Order is unjust, unreasonable and bad in law. 2) The ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the submissions in proper perspective.

ITA No 3862/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Jamuna, Rep. by Sambasivam Chinnappan, Legal Heir Vs ITO W 1(6) :: 2 :: 3) The ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the binding nature of the jurisdictional Madras High Court decisions, rendered in the context of sec. 151A. 4) Without prejudice to the above, the ld. First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the plea of the appellant for setting aside the assessment, as the same was completed by order under sec. 144. And, for other grounds and reasons that may be adduced later, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal may be admitted, duly considered and justice be rendered.

ITA No 3862/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Jamuna, Rep. by Sambasivam Chinnappan, Legal Heir Vs ITO W 1(6) :: 3 :: back to another Netherlands entity lacked commercial substance. Accordingly, the foreign receipts were treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68.The AO also disallowed the job work expenditure of Rs.1,92,21,392/-u/s. 37(1) on the ground that no satisfactory evidence regarding rendering of services, work completion reports, confirmations or TDS compliance had been furnished.Further, the proceeds from sale of Bitcoins amounting to Rs.64,09,258/- were treated as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 for want of supporting evidence. Cash deposits aggregating to Rs.2,83,427/- were also treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A. 4. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of the legal heir and rejected the contention that the reassessment was invalid for non-impleadment of all legal heirs. It was held that the assessment was rightly completed in the PAN of the deceased represented by her legal heir. 4.1 On the legal challenge regarding issuance of notice u/s. 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the contention by relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd., holding that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer retained jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings notwithstanding the Faceless Reassessment Scheme. 4.2 On merits, the ld.CIT(A) affirmed all the additions made by the AO. He held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the foreign receipts, failed to substantiate the job work expenditure, failed to explain the Bitcoin transactions and had not explained the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the entire assessment order was confirmed.

ITA No 3862/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Jamuna, Rep. by Sambasivam Chinnappan, Legal Heir Vs ITO W 1(6) :: 4 :: Now the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the reassessment itself was invalid as the notice u/s. 148 had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to section 151A and the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It was further submitted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the binding jurisdictional precedents and dismissed the legal grounds solely by relying upon a decision of the Delhi High Court. 5.1 Without prejudice, it was argued that the assessment had been completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B without proper appreciation of the evidences already filed during the assessment proceedings. It was contended that the ld.CIT(A) also failed to examine the documentary evidence and dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication on merits. The assessee therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO or ld.CIT(A)for fresh consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings and that the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory evidence to discharge the burden cast upon him. It was therefore contended that the ld.CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the additions and that no interference was called for. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the assessee had specifically raised legal grounds relating to the validity of reassessment u/s. 151A by placing reliance upon the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. However, the ld.CIT(A) disposed of the issue primarily by relying upon the decision of the

ITA No 3862/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Jamuna, Rep. by Sambasivam Chinnappan, Legal Heir Vs ITO W 1(6) :: 5 :: Delhi High Court without examining the applicability of the jurisdictional High Court decisions cited by the assessee. 7.1 We further note that the assessment had been completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B and that the CIT(A), while confirming substantial additions involving foreign remittances, job work expenditure, Bitcoin transactions and cash deposits, had not opportunity to examine the evidences and submissions of the assessee on merits as the assessee failed to submit the same. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the issues required fresh examination.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) and restored the entire matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider all legal and factual contentions raised by the assessee, including the challenge based on section 151A. He will take into consideration thesubsequent amendment and binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Tej Partap SinghITO [Dairy No. 2196/2026], as well as the merits of all additions, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and of producing relevant evidence. 7.2 The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and to produce all documentary evidence (if any), books of account, agreements, confirmations, bank statements, invoices, correspondence and any other material or written submissions on which reliance is sought to be placed in support of the grounds of appeal. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall comply with all notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). In the event of failure to do so, the ld.CIT(A) shall

ITA No 3862/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Jamuna, Rep. by Sambasivam Chinnappan, Legal Heir Vs ITO W 1(6) :: 6 :: be at liberty to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 13thday of July 2026 in Chennai.

Sd- Sd- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद)या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद)य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 13thJuly, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed SANDE by SANDEEP KUMAR EP Date: 2026.07.15 KUMAR 17:29:48 +05'30'