JASWINDER SINGH GREWAL,PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CITIA), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10153089 has erred in passing order dtd. 23.07.2025 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the ground, where the appellant had challenged the actions of Ld. AO of initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s 147, by wrongly remanding the entire appeal to the file of Ld. AO. 3. That on law, facts, and circumstances of the case, the impugned reassessment order deserves to be quashed since the reasons recorded before issuing notice u/s 148 were factually incorrect and the amount of unexplained credit in reasons recorded of Rs. 23,82,27,255/- are vague and ambiguous and were not at all related to the assessee. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in remanding the matter back in the file of Ld. AO when the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making the addition of Rs.2,10,27,255/- u/s 69A on account of 968-Chd-2025

First, we shall take the legal issue raised by the Assessee as the Assessee has argued primarily on the legal issue.

During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit, rather, he has remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer under clause (a) to sub-section (1) of section 251 of I.T. Act, 1961. He further argued that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be quashed.

Per contra, the ld. DR argued that the case was reopened by issuing notices u/s 147. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 because the required details were not filed by the Assessee. During appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC issued many notices to the Assessee for furnishing written submissions and evidences in support of the grounds of appeal but the Assessee sought adjournment on many occasions and finally did not fie the required submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, keeping in view that the assessment

The Ld. DR further argued that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified as the Act empowers the CIT(A) by inserting section 251 (1)(a) that in case an assessment order has been passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and if the Assessee fails to file the full details before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) may remand it back to the AO for fresh assessment.

We have considered the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the Assessee as well as Ld. DR on the legal issue. We find that it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the section 251(1)(a) of the Act fulfilling the conditions required as the assessment order passed by the AO is u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in our considered view, the Assessee does not have a case on this issue. As we have decided on the legal issue taken by the Assessee, therefore, we are not giving any 968-Chd-2025