MR. ROHIT RAMESH KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2416/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue regarding jurisdictional vs. faceless assessment notices is pending before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to complete the de novo assessment within one year.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), sold and purchased immovable property. The case was reopened, and assessment was completed under Section 144 without issuing notices under Section 148 or 148A. The CIT(A) restored the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment completed under Section 144 without proper notice under Section 148/148A in a faceless manner is valid, and whether the matter should be decided given the pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 13.02.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding grounds of appeal relating to jurisdictional issue of notice u/s 148 of the I T Act, 1961.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding ground of appeal relating to conducting of the proceedings u/s 148A and u/s 148 by jurisdictional AO in non-faceless manner which is contrary to Faceless Scheme of faceless assessment of the I T Act, 1961. Hence, assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is bad in law. Reliance is placed on decision of jurisdictional H C in case of Hexaware Technoligies Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom).

3. The appellant craves leave to consider each of the above ground of appeal as independent and without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all grounds of appeal.”

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The assessee sold and purchases immovable property during the relevant financial year. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information available in the record of department. During the assessment, no notice either under section 148 or any other notice was served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed under section 144. On coming to know about the ex-pate assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restored/set aside the case to the file of assessing officer for de novo assessment. The ld. AR submits that he has a very limited prayer about issuance of notice under section 148 by jurisdiction assessing officer when assessment was completed in a faceless manner. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee was appraised about the fact that issue relating to issuance of notice under section 148 by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) vis-à-vis by faceless assessing officer (FAO) is now pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it would not be appropriate by this bench to give any decision on such issue. After considering the position, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that matter pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 and the assessee is NRI, therefore, jurisdictional assessing officer may be directed to complete the de novo assessment in a time frame manner and he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to make timely compliance to the notices of assessing officer.

3.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.

DR) for the Revenue after hearing the submission of assessee raised no objection for giving direction to the jurisdictional assessing officer for completing assessment within one year.

4.

We have considering the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Considering the fact that ld CIT(A) has already restored back to the file of assessing officer. Therefore, no interference is called for at our end. However, we accept the submission of ld. AR of the assessee to complete the assessment order in a time frame manner. Hence, we direct the JAO to pass fresh assessment order as early as possible that to not later than one year from received of this order. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.08.2025 at the time of hearing.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →