GAURAV,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1616/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that jurisdictional issues, such as the assumption of jurisdiction or limitation, cannot be restored to the AO under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a). These legal grounds must be decided by the appellate authority itself.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) set aside the assessment order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo assessment, citing the proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

What were the issues?

Whether jurisdictional issues can be set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1616/Del/2026 Gaurav (AY: 2015-16) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1616/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Gaurav Vs. ITO, Ward 60(7) First Floor, D-82, Vikas Bhawan, Sector-105, Delhi - 110002 Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201304 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BBYPG0194D Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Nitin Goyal, CA Respondent by : Sh. Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1616/Del/2026 Gaurav (AY: 2015-16) short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/ 1083858641(1)

arising out of the assessment order dated 26.09.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by

Ward 60(7) Delhi, for AY: 2015-16.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that the NFAC has allowed the appeal

of the assesse by taking recourse to proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act

by restoring the issue to Assessing Officer for denovo assessment and the

impugned findings in para 6.6 of the order of NFAC are reproduced below:

“6.6 In this case also appellant's claim was not fully examined by AO during the course of assessment because the order was passed as Best Judgment manner u/s 144 of the IT Act. The addition was made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. Therefore, keeping the legislature intent in mind, it would meet the ends of justice, if the assessment in appeal is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Needless to say, the appellant shall make the required evidences in support of his claim before the AO for examination of the correctness of claim within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the assessment order is set aside to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order as per proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Appellant was provided one more opportunity to represent his case on merit and by setting aside appellant's all grievances related to jurisdictional issues related to 148A proceedings are resolved in his favour on the ground of principle of natural justice. Now only substantive issue related to merit of the case is pending and needs to be answered by the appellant. Ld. AO is directed to provide sufficient opportunity to be heard and then pass the order. Hence, all Ground Nos. 1 to 7 raised by the appellant is considered and partly allowed for statistical purpose without going into the merit of the case.”

3.

We find that assesse had raised jurisdictional issue questioning the

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act and the same have not been

decided by the NFAC and to the prejudice of assessee the said grounds so

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1616/Del/2026 Gaurav (AY: 2015-16) raised in that regard are also set aside to the Assessing Officer by observing that assessee’s grievance relating to jurisdictional issue thereby stand resolved.

4.

We find that assesse has raised jurisdictional ground before this Tribunal again through ground No. 1. We are of the considered view that the jurisdictional ground of assumption of jurisdiction or the reassessment proceeding being barred by limitation are not such legal issue which can be restored to assessing officer itself by recourse to proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and the only purpose of bringing this power in statute for assistance and benefit of assesse where assessment has been completed on best judgment basis, so that assesse is given opportunity to contest on merits of the issue which had resulted out of the best judgment assessment. However, question of law or legal ground raised to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction or to assert that the impugned assessment order is vitiated or void-ab-initio for any legal lacunae. These powers cannot be invoked by the ld. First Appellate Authority.

5.

In the light of aforesaid we allow the appeal of the assesse for statistical purposes and restore the legal issues to the files of ld. CIT(A) to

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1616/Del/2026 Gaurav (AY: 2015-16) give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse including opportunity to raise legal ground whatsoever available fresh and pass an order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 30.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →