Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The Assessee's grounds of appeal primarily focused on legal issues, including the CIT(A)'s order to remand the case back to the AO.
Held
The Tribunal considered the arguments of both the Assessee and the Revenue regarding the legal issue. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly invoked Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as the assessment order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not wrong.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in remanding the case back to the AO when the Assessee argued that the reassessment order deserved to be quashed and the assessment was framed in haste without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 147, 148, 69A, 115BBE, 251, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
968-Chd-2025 2
Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under:
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 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 3 alleged unexplained deposit in bank account.
5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE plus surcharge thereon on above addition made u/s 69A in Ground No. 4, even if the said addition is accepted academically, the same could only have been taxed at normal rates.
6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the above actions and addition made by Ld. AO by wrongly remanding the case back the Ld. AO for fresh proceedings/adjudication even when the initiation of assessment and making of addition was wrong in this case and there was no need to remand the matter.
7. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same has been framed in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
That the appellant craves for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.
968-Chd-2025 4
First, we shall take the legal issue raised by the Assessee as the Assessee has argued primarily on the legal issue.
4. 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
1. 968-Chd-2025 5 order was passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act by the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) invoked section 251 ((1)(a) and remanded it back to the file of the AO.
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 6 comments on the other grounds raised
by the Assessee on merits. Thus, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.