Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2018-19, challenging an assessment order dated 31.03.2023 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which made an addition of Rs. 7.00 lakh. The assessee had also raised a legal ground regarding the validity of the re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the CIT(A) had not dealt with the legal ground regarding the validity of reassessment, dismissing the appeal on merits. Relying on a High Court ruling, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate grounds not arising from the impugned order of the appellate authority, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 56(2)(x)(b)(B), 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 “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ajitesh Meena Date of hearing : 14.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 16.05.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 20.08.2025 neither the assessee nor any of his Authorised Representative represented the assessee. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record.
2 Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode
I have heard ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 has been concluded u/s.147 of the Act on 31.03.2023 wherein addition of Rs.7.00 lakh has been made on account of difference of stamp duty value in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. I further notice that before ld.CIT(A) assessee raised legal ground challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings on the ground that ld. Assessing Officer has not made addition on the issue for which the re-assessment proceedings has been carried out. I further note that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with this legal issue and has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by dealing with merits of the case and had merely affirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer.
Before this Tribunal also, assessee has raised the legal issue in Ground No.1 stating that notice u/s.148 of the Act is without jurisdiction and this ground was never raised before ld.CIT(A)
The issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the ground raised
before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com
92. (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not.
3 Machhindra Ishwarchand Sarode
For the aforestated reason, I deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues raised in the instant appeal before this Tribunal and then decide them in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.