Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2011-12 and challenges an order passed by NFAC, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised grounds challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings, including issues of jurisdiction and the assessment order being void ab initio.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the primary issue regarding the validity of the assessment proceedings as raised in Ground No. 2. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order was bad in law and void ab initio due to jurisdictional issues and procedural defects, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not annulling the assessment order on these grounds.
Sections Cited
144, 263, 147, 143(3), 148, 250(6)
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, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 29.10.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1) In the facts, circumstances and position of law assessment order under appeal is bad in law and void ab initio being passed without generating & quoting Document Identification Number (DIN). 2) Whether CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not annulling the assessment order under appeal passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Jalgaon on the basis of notice issued u/s.148 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon who was not having jurisdiction over the assessee and consequently assessment proceedings were transferred by the Assessing Officer Ward 2(2), Jalgaon to Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jalgaon having jurisdiction over the case and assessment order passed on the basis of notice u/s.148 issued by I.T.O. Ward 2(2), Jalgaon and without issuing fresh notice u/s.148?. 3) Whether CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not annulling the assessment order under appeal passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Jalgaon which is bad in law and void ab initio, though not declared as such by any authority, can be revised u/s.263?. 4) Whether CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not annulling the assessment order under appeal passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Jalgaon which is passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 263 of I.T. Act, 1961?. 5) Whether CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not annulling the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 263 being without authority of law?. 6) In the facts, circumstances and position of law Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in setting aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. 7) In the facts, circumstances and position of law Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.8,95,640/- on account of cash addition. 8) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or substitute to the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not decided Ground No.2 raised in Form No.35 challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings framed u./s.144 r.w.s.263 of the Act and prayed that the issue may please be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. Assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act assessing income at ₹3,52,750 which was further subjected to revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act and in compliance to the order of ld.PCIT, ld. Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceedings and addition of ₹11,94,140 made to the total income of ₹3,52,750 assessed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 29.10.2018. Income assessed at ₹15,46,890. Assessee challenged these additions along with raising a legal issue that the assessment order framed u/s.144 r.w.s.263 of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio and hence may be annulled.
We note that ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with this issue in the impugned order and we also take note that assessee has raised some more legal issues in Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 which have been raised for the first time before this Tribunal and the same deserves to be admitted by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383(SC).
Under these facts and circumstances, we restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) along with a direction to adjudicate Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in Form No.35 in the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 04th day of December, 2025.