Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 54,06,160 but did not file a return of income. The AO issued a show cause notice for reopening under Section 148A(b) and subsequently a notice under Section 148, treating the entire purchase amount as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal found that the legal issue regarding the reopening of assessment was raised for the first time and had not been raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was legal, void, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation, and whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities.
Sections Cited
148A(b), 148, 151, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 23/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 as per ground of appeal on record.
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs. 54,06,160/-, however, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 26/03/2022 asking the assessee that why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued in the case of assessee after getting approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. No response, however, was received from the assessee and therefore,
2 ITA1910/Chny/2025 Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to file the return of income. The assessee accordingly filed return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 5,67,280/- as shown in the income tax return filed under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also treated entire amount of Rs. 54,06,160/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in the said property.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
Now before us, the assessee raised a legal issue that the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and also barred by limitation and also claimed the sufficient opportunities were not provided to the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the genuineness of the said transaction.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions and found that the legal issue has been raised before this Tribunal for the first time and no such issue was raised before the ld. IT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving adequate
3 ITA1910/Chny/2025 Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.