Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal without properly appreciating facts or adjudicating all grounds. The assessee had requested clubbing of similar appeals, but this was not conceded. A key ground was that the assessment order was passed without issuing a mandatory notice u/s 148 or u/s 143(2).
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that clubbing of similar appeals should have been done for convenience. They also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the crucial legal ground regarding non-issuance of mandatory notices by wrongly stating the appellant failed to adduce evidence, when the AO's jurisdiction was challenged.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal, particularly the ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed without issuing mandatory notices under Section 148 and Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
148, 144, 142(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2016-17 M.R.Hemanathan, HUF, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.29/84, Murari Varadiyer Street, Tax, Salem, Circle-1(1), Tamil Nadu-636 001. Salem. [PAN: AAOHM4352D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1072444797(1) dated 23.01.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed his appeal without properly appreciating facts of its case and also by not adjudicating all the grounds raised. It is the case of the assessee that on similar facts few other appeals were pending before the Ld.CIT(A) and he had requested for clubbing which was not conceded by the Ld.CIT(A). It is the case of the assessee that since all other appeals were also on identical facts, request for clubbing was made for convenience of adjudication. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) it had raised legal ground stating that even though it had filed its Return of Income u/s 148, the Ld.AO concluded assessment without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 148. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission back to the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication of assessee’s appeal. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. On the first argument of the assessee regarding the adjudication through clubbing of various appeals on identical facts, we find force in the argument that it should have been done for convenience of adjudication, economy of time etc. As regards non-adjudication of appellant’s legal ground we have noted from the assessment order that notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 was issued to examine genuineness of gifts received by the assessee. According to the Ld.AO it had issued Page - 2 - of 4 notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.03.2021. Order u/s 144 was passed on 30.03.2022 by recording inadequate compliance by the assessee. The assessee has placed on record its paper book which indicates that in response to notice u/s 148, Return of Income was filed on 18.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs.34,020/-. We have noted that vide ground of appeal no.3 raised before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee had contested that assessment order passed without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and liable to be quashed within the meanings of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court as it 321 ITR 362. We have noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely dismissed this ground on the premise that the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence in support of the averments made. We are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Ld. First Appellant Authority since this was crucial point raised by the assessee and assuming that the appellant was not complying, the Ld. CIT(A) as a conscientious judicial authority of the Revenue department could have verified this aspect by exercising vide powers available to him under the law. The assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld.AO which could not have been lightly ignored by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal de novo, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Page - 3 - of 4 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 6th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 6th , Aug-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 4 - of 4