MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1037/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal arose from an order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 23.03.2022 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on a best judgment basis. This assessment was necessitated by the assessee's non-attendance during the assessment proceedings, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 90,54,648/-. The CIT(A), exercising powers under section 251(1)(a), directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by this direction and has appealed to the ITAT, stating that various legal grounds raised by them were not adjudicated.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee remained unrepresented before the Ld. AO, which led to the framing of a best judgment assessment. During the first appeal, the assessee furnished additional evidence, prompting the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the Ld. AO to frame a fresh assessment. The Tribunal found no fault with this direction by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal clarified that all issues, including the legal grounds raised by the assessee, would remain open for adjudication before the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the direction by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. AO to make a fresh assessment, after the assessee furnished additional evidence during the first appeal, was valid, considering the assessee's non-representation before the Ld. AO which led to a best judgment assessment. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the powers of appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that no adjudication was done on various legal grounds raised by them before the lower authorities. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in the judgment. However, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order directing a fresh assessment implies a view that a fresh assessment was warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

Pronounced: 01.10.2026

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 26.03.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) on best judgment basis u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.03.2022. In the assessment order, Ld. AO assessed income of Rs.90,54,648/- on best judgment basis since the assessee did not attend ass

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →