JODIYA WATER BDESALINATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi, [for short “CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2025, for the assessment

year 2019-20. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ["the learned CIT(A)"] has erred in setting aside the re- assessment order by invoking the powers under proviso below to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground on validity of re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground on validity of re-opening the assessment based on the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC"). (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 in respect of fixed deposit as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in adding the interest income Rs. 30,92,409 as against the interest income of Rs. 29,12,965 (as reflected in the Form 26AS generated for the assessment year under consideration). 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and records are

perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’) for the

assessee submits that, he has raised an Additional Grounds of the appeal

vide its application dated 13.04.2026, that the reassessment proceedings

were initiated and completed against non-existing PAN. Consequently, the

assessment proceedings are bad in law. The second additional ground of

appeal relates to jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”)

verses Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”). The ld AR of the assessee

prayed that his additional grounds of appeal may be adjudicate first, which

is purely legal in nature and does not require to consider facts which are

not available on record.

Sr. DR’) submitted that, the assessee has obtained duplicate PAN in its

name. The assessee is a beneficiary of interest income earned on fixed

deposit in the bank account, wherein, the assessee has shown the PAN

Number on which the assessment under consideration was completed. The

assessee was an ex-parte before the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and no

compliance was made by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) thus, keeping in view of the fact that the assessment was completed ex-parte, set aside to

the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee is not going to

face any prejudice. The assessee has not raised any such factual or legal

objection before AO. The lower authorities have no occasion to consider

such legal or factual objection as has been raised before this Bench. The

issues raised by assessee by way of additional ground of appeal are mixed

question of facts and law. At the worst, the assessee may be given liberty

to raise all factual and legal issues before the AO.

the assessee has already surrendered duplicate PAN.

gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also

deliberated on additional grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee. We

find that the ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter to the file of the AO, keeping

in mind that the assessee was ex-parte. We fully conquer with the view

taken by the Ld.CIT(A). In so far as the other legal grounds of the appeal

are concerned, we find merit in the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR for the

revenue that the assessee has obtained duplicate PAN and remained ex-

parte without filling any objection before the AO either in respect of

duplicacy of PAN obtained or in the issue of the Jurisdictional Assessing

Officer (“JAO”) and Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”). Therefore, the

assessee is given liberty to raise all the factual or legal submissions before

the AO. Thus, with these observations, the grounds of the appeal raised by

the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on. 18.06.2026 at the time of

hearing

Sd/- Sd/- MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 18/06/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar/Sr Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai