SHIVANI KHATIWARA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD5(2)(4), NOIDA

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148, which were without proper jurisdiction, mechanical in nature, and based merely on borrowed satisfaction from AIR information without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

That the reassessment proceedings are further vitiated as the approval granted by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 151 is mechanical and non-speaking, merely stating "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148," without recording any reasons or independent satisfaction, thereby rendering the approval invalid.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that no valid or lawful order under section 127 was passed for transfer of jurisdiction from the Assessing Officer at Delhi to ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Noida. Hence, the assessment completed by an officer lacking territorial and lawful jurisdiction is null and void.

That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing of return in response to notice under section 148, which renders the entire assessment void ab initio in view of the judgment of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC).

That the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidences filed under Rule 45A, namely computation of income, statement of affairs, bank statements, and details of business closure and jewellery sales, despite sufficient

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the exparte best judgment assessment under section 144, ignoring the fact that no proper show cause notice or effective opportunity being of hearing heard was served was served upon the assessee, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.64,60,000/- under section 69, without considering the explained sources of investment and without conducting any verification or inquiry, thereby making the addition purely on suspicion and surmise.”

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order in this case has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) exparte without giving careful consideration of all the papers and details filed as additional evidence during appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel requested for remanding this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the case afresh.

Per contra the Ld. DR vehemently opposed sending this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and supported the orders given on different issues by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the assessment orders and the appellate order and we have also heard both the parties during proceedings before us. We are of this view in order to have natural justice the assessee deserves to have one more opportunity to the Ld. CIT(A) to be heard alongwtih all the documents / details filed. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide different grounds of appeal of the assessee afresh and consider all the papers and documents filed by the assessee. In case if the Ld. CIT(A) feels so he may get remand report from the AO and then decide the issues accordingly. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is remand back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.