M/S. MANINDRA ORCHARDES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), CHENNAI

PER BENCH:

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

These six appeals filed by different assessees are directed against

separate orders dated 26.06.2025, 27.06.2025, 29.07.2025, 26.06.2025,

08.07.2025 & 26.06.2025 respectively passed by the ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai for different assessment years stated

herein above.

similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the

parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated

order for the sake of convenience.

in the case of M/s. Ajitabh Agro Farms Private Limited for adjudication.

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

admitted the appeal for adjudication.

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the

Act’) was carried out at residential/business premises in the cases of M/s.

Golden Shelters Private Ltd, NKV Krishna Group on 16.10.2019.

According to the Assessing Officer, the office premise of the assessee

was also covered under section 132 of the Act and the assessment order

under section 153A of the Act dated 25.09.2021 was passed in the case

of the assessee determining the total income at ₹.1,07,798/-. Further, the

said assessment order was revised by the ld. PCIT, Central -1, Chennai

vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 22.03.2024 and the

Assessing Officer passed giving effect order under section 153A r.w.s.

263 of the Act dated 24.10.2024 assessing income of the assessee at

₹.23,82,798/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the

Assessing Officer against which the assessee preferred present appeal

before the ITAT.

5 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

conducted in the case of the assessee and no Panchanama executed in

its name. She argued that the Assessing Officer has erroneously invoked

the provisions of section 153A of the Act during the course of original

assessment proceedings. She submits that the assessee made deposits

in regular bank account duly recorded in the books of accounts and the

same cannot be treated as incriminating documents being found during

the course of search. She refers to original assessment order/ revision

order passed under section 263 of the Act dated 22.03.2024 and submits

there was no search in the case of the assessee and no incriminating

material was referred in the assessment order as well as revision order.

She argued vehemently that the assessment under section 153A of the

Act made in the hands of the assessee without there being search and

incriminating material found or seized in the case of the assessee, is not

justified, as a result, the subsequent revisional order passed under

section 263 of the Act and further assessment order passed under

section 153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act are equally flawed and should be set

aside as they are based on invalid or non-est original assessment. She

refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of

CIT v. Ramesh D. Patel reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540 (Gujarat)

and argued that the provisions under section 153A of the Act make it very

6 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

clear that only in the case of a person where search was initiated under

section 132 or books of account or other documents or any assets were

requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31.03.2002, the

Assessing Officer could after issue of notice, assess or reassess the total

income of such person for six assessment years. The ld. AR drew our

attention to page 1 to 15 of paper book in the batch cases of M/s. Ojas

Plantations Private Limited v. ACIT/DC & ors in ITA Nos. 1769 to 1772 &

1793/Chny/2025 vide order dated 14.11.2025, wherein one of the

assessees in that batch cases before us in the present group cases i.e.,

M/s. Manindira Orchardes Private Limited v. ACIT/DC in ITA No.

1793/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 and submits that in the absence of

Panchanama executed in assessee’s name or any search was conducted

in the case of the assessee or any incriminating material referred in the

assessment order, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated

27.09.2021 passed under section 153A of the Act. She argued that the

giving effect order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the

directions under section 263 of the Act has no legs to stand and placed

on record the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of

Rane Brakes Lining Limited reported in 272 ITR 405 (Mad) and

submissions and that on similar circumstances, where no appeal was

preferred by the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that

7 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

non-filing of an appeal against the illegal order or an order which

becomes nullity cannot, in any way either validate the same or render it

enforceable in law. She argues that the main contention of the assessee

is that if the original assessment order passed u/s. 153A of the Act is

illegal in terms of its jurisdiction or if the same is null or void in the eyes of

law on any jurisdictional grounds, then whether it can give rise to initiation

of further proceedings and whether such subsequent proceedings would

be valid under the law as contained in Income-tax Act? She submits that

it is a settled law, that the subsequent proceedings (collateral

proceedings) derives strength only from the order passed in the original

proceedings (primary proceedings). She argued vehemently if the order

passed in the original proceedings is itself illegal, then that cannot give

rise to valid revision proceedings and submits that the validity of order

passed in the original proceedings should be allowed to be examined

even at the subsequent stage only for the limited purpose of examining

whether the collateral proceedings are been initiated on a valid legal

platform or not and for examining the validity of assumption of jurisdiction

to initiate the collateral proceedings. She argues if it is not allowed then,

it may so happen that though order passed in the original proceedings

was illegal and order passed in the subsequent proceedings in turn would

also be illegal, but in the absence of a remedy to contest the same, it

8 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

may give rise to an enforceable tax liability without authority of law. She

drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in the case of

Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, in ITA

No. 895/Chny/2025 for assessment year 2018-19, and by referring to

Para no.32 of the said order, surged that the Tribunal by placing reliance

in the case of Badrinath of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000

SC 3243, which held that once a basis of proceedings are gone, all

consequential orders and acts would fall on the ground automatically

which is applicable to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings also. She

argued a defect jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or

whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the

very authority of the court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot

be cured even by consent of parties. Further, she referred to the decision

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank reported in 2015 (3)

SC 712, wherein it was held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at

any time even in appeal or execution. She prayed to quash the giving

effect order dated 24.10.2024 passed under section 153A r.w.s. 263 of

the Act.

assessment order, revision order as well as giving effect assessment

9 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act and the order of

the ld. CIT(A). She further submits that the ground no.1 was neither

raised before the AO, ld.CIT(A), 263 proceedings and the assessee is not

entitled to raise before this Tribunal for the first time, having option of

raising before the AO, ld.CIT(A) and ld.PCIT. She referred to paperbook

containing 64 pages and submits that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the

contention of the assessee that there is no seized material found in their

case during the course of search and held the addition is maintainable.

She submits that the ld.PCIT under 263 proceedings issued show cause

notice to the assessee wherein, the assessee filed its response and

considering the same, ld.PCIT has passed a speaking order, wherein he

directed the AO to carryout necessary enquiries/verification as to the

source of cash credits and revise the assessment order. She submits

that the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is totally false in the sense, it

has never raised the issue of validity of assessment made u/s. 143(3)

r.w.s. 153A of the Act on the ground of lack of Panchanama in the name

of assessee before the AO or ld.CIT(A) as it is seen in the assessment

order and the ld.CIT(A) order. The assessee raised only ground before

the AO and ld.CIT(A) regarding the issue of no incriminating material

seized in the year under consideration, but not any Panchanama

executed in the name of the assessee. She submits raising of ground

10 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

no.1 before this Tribunal is a sheer afterthought of assessee to take

advantage of case laws in favour in this regard. She submits that the

ld.CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised challenging the validity of notice

issued u/s. 153A of the Act vide order dated 26.06.2025, but no appeal

filed against such order, which clearly shows that the assessee accepted

the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and the assessee cannot raise the issue after

a lapse of 6 years from the date of original assessment order.

Krishna, Golden Shelter Pvt Ltd and 137 companies, it means search is

initiated in Mr. NKV Krishna, Golden Shelter Pvt Ltd and all the 137

companies. In Panchanama which is drawn for respective premises will

list out the details of seized materials, the name of the assessee company

is not found, does not mean that search is not done in the case of

assessee. The name of the company is available in the seized pen drive

containing details of transactions pertaining to it and the key person has

already admitted before the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS). She

further submits that the assessee picks and chose to its own convenience,

on one hand accepts the validity of 153A notice under original

assessment proceedings and on the other hand, it challenges the notice

u/s. 153A in the order issued giving effect to revision order u/s. 263 of the

11 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

Act, which is totally wrong and ground no.1 needs to be dismissed. She

submits that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are totally distinct

from the facts of the assessee’s case and argued vehemently the same

are not at all applicable to the assessee’s case. She referred to the facts

and circumstances in the case of M/s. Megnanapuram Primary

Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (Supra), submits that the issue

therein is first of all related to issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and

violation of certain specified authority approval as per the statutory

provisions and more importantly the assessee in its first opportunity of

appeal has raised the issue of validity of notice. She submits in the

present case, the assessee accepted the decision of ld.CIT(A) in the

original assessment order with regard to validity of notice u/s. 153A of the

Act and filed appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A) with reference to

order giving effect to the revision order u/s. 263 of the Act, which clearly

shows that the assessee is taking two contradictory stands at a time after

availing due opportunity and participating in the various proceedings

before the Department which is not in the relied upon judgments.

on record. The moot point raised by the ld. AR vide ground No. 1 as to

whether the revision order under section 263 of the Act is valid in view of

12 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

the ITAT’s order dated 14.11.2025 in quashing the assessment order

dated 27.09.2021 passed under section 153A of the Act in the batch

cases of M/s. Ojas Plantations Private Limited & Ors, wherein one of the

assessees in that batch cases before us in the present group cases i.e.,

M/s. Manindira Orchardes Private Limited v. ACIT/DC in ITA No.

1793/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19, by holding that the assessment passed

under section 153A of the Act is not maintainable when no search under

section 132 of the Act was carried out, resultantly no Panchanama is

executed. We find that the said consolidated order dated 14.11.2025

passed by the ITAT in batch cases of M/s. Ojas Plantations Private

Limited v. ACIT Ors for AY 2018-19 in I.T.A. No. 1769 to 1772 &

1793/Chny/2025, wherein, one of the appellants is before us in ITA No.

1793/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 and for ready reference, the relevant

part of the order is reproduced herein below:

13 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

reported in [2018] 89 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat), wherein, it is clearly held that no addition could be made on the basis of statement of the Director of the assessee company therein vide para 6 & 7. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the Panchnama is the result of search in terms of warrant of authorization, but, when there is no Panchnama in the name of the assessee, we can safely conclude that there is no search in the case of the assessee covering the warrant of authorization and accordingly, the addition under section 68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee.

14 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under:

“(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer - (a) Where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier,

(b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub- section (1) of section 115WH or under Section 148 for making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier.”

15 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

perusal of the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer

observed that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the

Act was carried at the residential/business premises in the case of M/s.

Golden Shelter Pvt. Ltd., NKV Krishna Group on 16.10.2019 and the case

of the assessee is covered under section 132 of the Act vide para-2,

which clearly shows the facts and circumstances of the present case are

similar to the above case, further, the AO proceeded to add the addition

in the hands of assessee only on the basis of statements of Shri Badari

Narayan Kota and Saravana Kumar vide paras 3 of the assessment order

which clearly establishes the addition was made only on the basis of

statements of third parties, which, further, establishes that there was no

search in the case of the assessee herein and no Panchnama resultantly

as such executed in the name of the assessee exclusively, which is

absent from the assessment order.

we find the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal quashed the assessment

order dated 27.09.2021 passed under section 153A of the Act by placing

reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

16 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

of CIT v. Ramesh D. Patel reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540

(Gujarat), which held the assessment completed under section 153A of

the act is not maintainable when no search under section 132 of the Act

was carried out vide para 7 of the said order. Further, it was observed

that when there is no Panchanama, which is the result of the search,

assessment under section 153A of the Act cannot be framed. Therefore,

it is clear that as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR that when the

assessment cannot be framed under section 153A of the Act, passing

revision order against such assessment order by the ld. PCIT under

section 263 of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable,

consequential giving effect order dated 23.10.2024 passed under section

153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act, which is impugned before us, has no legs to

stand as it is equally flawed basing on invalid and non-est original

assessment.

assessee having represented before the AO, ld.CIT(A) and ld.PCIT, no

such ground taken challenging the validity of 153A proceedings, we note

admittedly this is a legal ground going to the root of the case and no new

facts required to be examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

NTPC reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) clearly held the assessee can raise

17 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

legal ground before the ITAT at any time. Therefore, there is no bar on

the assessee that it cannot raise legal ground for the first time before the

ITAT. Thus, the submissions of the ld.DR are not acceptable in this

regard.

Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (Supra),

on plain reading of the said order, we find the coordinate bench raised a

query to the ld.AR, whether the assessee can challenge the validity of an

assessment proceedings in the appeal emanating from the revisionary

proceedings in terms of 263 of the Act/ collateral proceedings. In

response to the said query, the ld.AR placed on record case laws of

Tribunals and decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha and Delhi, which

are evident from Para no.25 of the said order. The Tribunal vide Para no.

32 of the said order observed the said primary argument of the ld.AR in

respect of challenging the order of the assessment in the collateral

proceedings, observed that the said issue has to be examined by keeping

in line that once the basis of proceedings are gone, all consequential

orders and acts would fall on the ground automatically which is applicable

to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. In order to examine the said

issue, the Tribunal referred to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

18 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

case of K.C. Builders vs ACIT reported in 265 ITR 562, wherein it was

held that it is a fundamental principle, well established that the decree

passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity

could be set up whenever and wherever it is ought to be enforced or

relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral

proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial

or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the

very authority of the court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot

be cured even by consent of parties. Further, the Tribunal relied on the

order of Delhi ITAT Benches in the case of Mikado Realtors Pvt Ltd in ITA

No. 50/Del/2021, wherein it was held the present proceedings being

collateral proceedings and if the assessment order is inherently invalid or

bad in law, then validity of such an order can be challenged at any stage

in the collateral proceedings including the proceedings u/s. 263, because

invalid order cannot be set aside or can be revised to make it valid. For

ready reference the relevant part from Para no. 36 to 38 in the case of

Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (Supra),

is reproduced herein below:

“36. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: "14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the

19 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This position is not disputed and disturbed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order under Section 263 of the Act. Sequitur is that the Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of share application money in the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148. Accordingly, the assessment order is not erroneous. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act." 37. We find that various co-ordinate benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had adjudicated under identical circumstances as follows: 1) Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mikado Realtors P. Ltd (supra) had held as follows: "19. It is incontrovertible that proceedings u/s. 263 are collateral proceedings of the assessment, because ld. CIT/PCIT exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 seeking to revise the assessment order on the ground that it is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The edifice of the proceedings u/s 263 is the assessment order which is the original proceedings which has come to an end. However, if the original assessment order itself was invalid or illegal in terms of jurisdiction or was not in accordance with the provisions of the statute or was barred by limitation, then such an invalid order cannot be subject matter of further proceedings so as to validate the said assessment order in collateral proceedings like u/s 263. This precise principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases which is evident from the judgment of Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Pawan and others (supra) and Balwant N. Viswamitra and others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mul (supra) which we have quoted extenso in the forgoing paragraphs. In view of the binding judicial precedents and the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the principle laid down by the Kerala High Court and Madras High Court may not have the binding precedence to hold otherwise. Accordingly, we hold that the present proceedings being collateral proceedings and if the assessment order is inherently invalid or bad in law, then validity of such an order can be challenged at any stage in the collateral proceedings including the proceedings u/s.263, because invalid order cannot be set aside or can be revised to make it valid. Though assessment order may be said to be erroneous but certainly it cannot be held prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in such circumstances when assessment order

20 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

itself is unsustainable, in view of the provisions of law as reiterated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as discussed herein above. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed u/s.263, as Ld. PCIT could not have revised the assessment order which itself is an invalid order. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this score. The other grounds raised by the assessee are treated as academic in nature." 2). The Mumbai bench in yet another case of M/s Westlife Development Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of (Successor to Wespoint Leisureparks Income-tax- 5 Ltd) (supra) had proceeded to quash the revision order under identical circumstances by following as follows: "10. If the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the imp u g ned order u/s 263 to revise the non est assessment order: Having decided the aforesaid two issues, the next issue that is to be decided by us is about the validity of order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. CIT seeking to revise the assessment order which was nullity in the eyes of law. 10.1. We have discussed in detail in earlier part of our order that an invalid order cannot give birth to legally valid proceedings. It is further noticed by us that some of the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel have already addressed this issue. This issue has also been decided by the co-ordinate bench (Delhi Bench of Tribunal) in the case of Krishna Kumar Saraf vs CIT (supra). The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:.. 10.2. It is further noticed by us that similar view has been taken by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Ltd (supra). 11. Thus, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in this case, the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt 24-10- 2013 was null & void in the eyes of law as the same was passed upon a non- existing entity and, therefore, the Ld. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction under the law to make revision of a non est order and, therefore, the impugned order passed u/s 263 by the Ld.CIT is also nullity in the eyes of law and therefore the same is hereby quashed." 3). The Kolkatta bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (supra) had held as follows:

21 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

"16. In the present case also the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only for the purpose of verification and examination which is not the scope of reassessment proceedings. It would be the case of rather reasons to suspect rather than reasons to belief that there was escapement of income. It is a case of the AO seeking to make fishing and roving inquiry without any basis. We have no hesitation in concluding that initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was not valid as the mandatory requirement of such 147 has not been satisfied. We therefore hold that reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008- 09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007- 08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed." 4). The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Saraf (supra) had held as follows: "18. However, u/s 263 the ld. Commissioner cannot revise a non est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice u/s 143(2), which was beyond time, therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 ld. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If ld. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is settled law that by the action of the authorities the limitation cannot be extended, because the provisions of limitation are provided in the statute." 5. The Kolkatta bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Concord Infra Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) had held as follows: "After having considered the judicial precedent on the issue we are of the view that the validity of the order passed by the AO which is being

22 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

interdicted by the learned Principal CIT in the impugned order assailed before us, can be examined as whether the AO had the requisite jurisdiction to reopen/reassess the escaped income of the assessee. Therefore, in this case we need to examine the action of AO, dt. 29th Dec., 2017 passed under s. 147 of the Act which action of AO depends upon the AO assuming validly the jurisdiction to pass an order of assessment under s. 147 of the Act. It is settled law that the AO can reopen the assessment only after fulfilling the conditions laid down in the said section (s. 147 of the Act) namely reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for that assessment year has escaped assessment. If this essential condition is not satisfied by the AO before initiating assuming jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act then in such an event it cannot be said the AO has validly assumed jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act. As discussed even if for any reason, the assessee had not challenged the validity of proceedings under s. 147 of the Act by filing appeal against the order framed under s. 147 of the Act, it can be challenged in the appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal CIT under s. 263 of the Act revising the invalid order under s. 147 of the Act. As noted this issue has been analysed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has equated the reopening assessment under s. 147 to primary proceedings and the subsequent proceedings by learned Principal CIT under s. 263 passed to be collateral proceedings. In this order the Tribunal has taken note of several ratio's of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the primary proceedings are non est in law or void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, then the validity of such proceedings can be challenged even in an appeal arising out of collateral proceedings. Since we have already set out the ratio/operating portions of these decisions, we do not wish to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that the invalidity of the primary proceedings for lack of jurisdiction can be challenged even in appellate proceedings arising out of a collateral proceeding. In view of the aforesaid legal position we will now examine the legal issue. For doing that first of all we have to examine whether the AO in the present case, could have reopened the assessment of the assessee by issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act (which ultimately resulted in AO order dt. 29th Dec., 2017)." 38. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs, followed by co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, this Tribunal agrees with the argument of the Ld.AR that the validity of the re-assessment proceedings can be challenged and raised in

23 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

the appeal emanating from the revision proceedings initiated in terms of Section 263 of the Act.”

the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd, M/s. Classic Flour and Food

Processing Pvt Ltd, Kolkata and in the case of Krishan Kumar Saraf of

Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi Benches of ITAT, clearly held that if the

primary proceedings are non-est in law or void on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction, then the validity of such proceedings can be challenged even

in an appeal arising out of collateral proceedings.

Ltd (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to decide the

substantial question of law raised by the appellant/revenue, therein,

whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in

entertaining the appeal against the consequent order of the Assessing

Officer in giving effect to the order of the revision, when the order of

revision u/s. 263 of the Act was not challenged in appeal at any time. The

Hon’ble High Court of Madras by placing reliance in the case of Allied

Motors Pvt Ltd reported in 224 ITR 677 (SC) held non-filing of an appeal

against the illegal order or an order which has become a nullity, in our

24 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

considered opinion, cannot, in any way, either validate the same or

render it enforceable in law.

are similar to the facts and circumstances in Megnanapuram Primary

Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (Supra), wherein assessee

before us as aggrieved by the order of the AO u/s. 153A of the Act

challenged the same before the ld.CIT(A), wherein the Ld.CIT(A) gave

relief on merits. But however dismissed the legal ground raised with

reference to the addition is not maintainable in the absence of

incriminating material. Admittedly, as contended by the ld.DR no ground

raised challenging the validity of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act before

the ld.CIT(A), since assessee succeeded before the ld.CIT(A) on merits

no appeal was filed before the ITAT. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras

in the case of Rane Brakes Lining Ltd (supra) clearly held non-filing of

appeal against an illegal order or an order which became a nullity cannot

in any way, either valid the same or render it enforceable in law. The

Hon’ble High Court came to such a conclusion while holding to

substantial question of law against revenue framed by the

appellant/revenue challenging the finding of the ITAT was right in holding

that the appeal against the consequent order of the Assessing Officer in

25 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

giving effect to the order of revision, when the order of revision u/s. 263 of

the Act was not challenged in appeal at any time? Therefore, following

the order of the ITAT in the case of Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural

Co-operative Credit Society (Supra), we hold the assessee is entitled to

raise ground no.1 and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in the case of Rane Brakes Lining Limited (Supra), we

hold ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee by holding that passing

revision order by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act against the

assessment order under section 153A of the Act is bad under law and not

maintainable, consequential giving effect order dated 24.10.2024 passed

under section 153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act, which is impugned before us,

has no legs to stand as it is equally flawed basing on invalid and non-est

original assessment. Thus, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is

allowed.

assessee, holding in favour of the assessee, ground No. 2 raised in Form

36 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

26 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

I.T.A. No. 3116/Chny/2025 for AY 2016-17 in the case of M/s. Charudutta Agro Farming Private Limited.

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

admitted the appeal for adjudication.

regard to raising of ground No 1. being legal issue, which is similar and

based on same identical facts with that of appeal in ITA No.

under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order under section

153A of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable. Therefore, the equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal.

Thus, consequential giving effect order dated 11.11.2024 passed under 27 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 assessment. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

I.T.A. No. 3117/Chny/2025 for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Manindra Orchardes Private Limited

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

admitted the appeal for adjudication.

under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order under section

28 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

153A of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable, since the

coordinate bench vide order dated 14.11.2025 in batch cases in ITA Nos.

1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/2025 for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17

& 2018-19, respectively, quashed the assessment orders passed u/s.

153A of the Act, thus, consequential giving effect order dated 23.10.2024

passed under section 153A r.w.s. 263 of the Act, which is impugned

before us, has no legs to stand as it is equally flawed basing on invalid

and non-est original assessment. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the

assessee is allowed.

I.T.A. No. 3118/Chny/2025 for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Achyuta Plantations Private Limited

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

29 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 admitted the appeal for adjudication.

under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order under section

153A of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable. Therefore, the equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal.

Thus, consequential giving effect order dated 24.10.2024 passed under assessment. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

30 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25

I.T.A. No. 3119/Chny/2025 for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Bhadrak Plantations Private Limited

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

admitted the appeal for adjudication.

under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order under section

153A of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable. Therefore, the equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal.

Thus, consequential giving effect order dated 24.10.2024 passed under 31 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 assessment. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

I.T.A. No. 3120/Chny/2025 for AY 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Bhadrak Agro Farming Private Limited

assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.

admitted the appeal for adjudication.

under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order under section

153A of the Act is bad under law and not maintainable. Therefore, the

32 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 I.T.A. I.T.A. Nos.3115 Nos.3115 totototo 3120/Chny/25 Nos.3115 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 3120/Chny/25 equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal.

Thus, consequential giving effect order dated 24.10.2024 passed under assessment. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.04.2026

JPV/- आदेशकी&ितिलिपअ-ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ%/Appellant, 2.&'थ%/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु./CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय&ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड# फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.05 17:21:11 +05'30'