JAGDISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.08.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred on facts and in law in Crossing the appeal of the appellant without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant to make his submissions in support of the grounds taken in the appeal memo. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred oh facts and in law dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not appreciating the law that the Ld. ITO-4(1), Lucknow who passed the impugned assessment order in consequence of the notice dated 31 03.2024 issued u/s 148 of the Act by the office of the ITO 3(1)(2), MZN did not have any jurisdiction to pass any such order leading the impugned assessment order to be quashed.

ITA No.647/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 5 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not appreciating the law that the Ld. ITO 4(1), Lucknow passed tie impugned assessment order without assuming proper jurisdiction over the assessee on the ground that the case of the assessee was transferred to the jurisdiction of the ITO -3(5) vide order 08.01.2025 passed u/s 127 of the LT Act. 1961 and hence the assessment order so passed deserves to be qashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by grossly ignoring the law that after bringing the faceless assessment scheme into the statute book, - "jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not having any such jurisdiction to issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by grossly ignoring the law that the impugned assessment order was framed in consequence of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which in itself is bad in law and illegal on the under noted facts and the reasons- 6. Because the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act does not bear the digital signature of the approving authority of PCCIT UP (West), Uttarakhand as it has been granted mechanically. Because the approval u/s 151 of the Act has been granted by PCCIT UP (West) on recommendation of the PCIT, Dehradun on 29.03.2024 and the PCIT Dehradun endorsed the approval on the recommendation of the JCIT, MZN dated 29.03.2024. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not appreciating the law that the reasons recorded for the issuance of such notice was made on borrowed satisfaction and without application of own and independent mind on the part of the Assessing Officer as no incriminating material was provided to the assessee to have his say. 7. The Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.62,14,500/-in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the entries appearing in the hard disc of M/s Vianaar Group as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without bringing any cogent and concrete materials on records as to how the figure of Rs.62,14,500/- pertains to the assessee and as to how it is unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee. 8. The appellant reserves her right to advance such the other grounds before or at the time of hearing which she may consider fit and appropriate, for which she craves leave to amend, alter or otherwise modify the grounds appearing hereinabove with kind permission of the office of CIT-Appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed its Income Tax Return (ITR), declaring total income of Rs.8,00,960/- for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 31.08.2019. The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) dated 31.03.2024. The basis of re-opening of assessment stated to be information gathered during the course of search at third party namely M/s. Vihan Group. The details of information gathered related to the

ITA No.647/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 assessee is recorded in the assessment order. The AO found that there was difference in the excel sheet and books amounting to Rs.62,14,500/-. Thus, this amount is bone of contention between the parties. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.62,14,500/- treating it to be investment in immovable property unexplained u/s 69 of the Act. The AO thus made assessment thereby assessing the income at Rs.70,15,460/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal ex parte against the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No.647/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 5 u/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Lucknow, are valid in law. It is a settled position that jurisdiction is a foundational requirement for the validity of any assessment. If the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction at the time of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. In the present case, the contention of the assessee is that jurisdiction over the case had already been transferred prior to the issuance of notice under section 148. This contention goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, requires proper adjudication. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating this legal ground on merits. Consequently, the assessee could not place the necessary explanation and material before the lower authorities. Considering the totality of the facts, we deem it fit and proper and to sub-serve the interest of principles of natural justice, we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Authority who would verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. The assessee would cooperate and furnish all relevant evidence and explanations as called for by the Assessing Authority. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ननखखल चौिरी] [कुल भारत] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT ददनांक/DATED: 28/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)

ITA No.647/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File