INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMALAPURAM vs. LAVANYA ANE LAKSHMI KOTESWARI CHIRLA, RAVULAPALEM

The Order of the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) had erred in setting aside the order of the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, in contravention to the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessment was not made u/s.144 of the Act and erroneously set aside the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in stating that the assessee failed to avail the opportunities provided which in fact led to passing of an ex- parte best judgement assessment order. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the assessment order was passed after examining the reply of the assessee and submissions made by the assessee such as copies of settlement deeds, copies of sale deeds, Market Value Certificate, details of land, computation of LTCG etc. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and/or at the time of hearing of appeal. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions be restored. 3. While initiating the argument, the Ld.DR has mentioned that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in setting aside the order of assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act in contravention to the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld.DR has further stated that the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect in setting aside the order of the Ld.AO without appreciating the fact that the assessment order was passed after examining the reply of the assessee and hence, the same is incorrect.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in setting aside the assessment order passed in the case of the Respondent and in directing the assessing officer to do the assessment afresh. 2. The direction of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is within the scope of powers granted to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide Proviso to S.251(1) of the Act. 3. For any other ground of cross-objection that may be raised at the time of hearing. 4. Subsequently, at the time of hearing before the ITAT, the appellant has filed a petition for admitting the additional grounds of cross objection as follows :

The notice u/s 148A(b) issued on 22.03.2022 did not provide for clear 7 days of time to the respondent and hence the same is invalid and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2. The notice dt.31.03.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention of the provisions of S.151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid. 4.1. The above two legal grounds were raised and argued by the Ld.AR of the appellant before the Bench for the first time. The Ld.AR of the appellant fairly admitted that these grounds of appeal were not taken before the First Appellate Authority and requested the Bench to adjudicate the same and give relief to the appellant by quashing the assessment order itself.