DATTAPRASAD RADHAKISAN REVGADE,HIVARGAON vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, as the assessment order u/s 147 r.w. 144 of the Act passed by Ld. NaFAC is illegal and bad in law since it is without complying with multiple juri ictional conditions as per section 147 to 151A and, therefore the said assessment order may please be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Ld. NaFAC since the Notice u/s 148 dated 04-04-2022 was issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 2 Ahmednagar) and not by the NaFAC and hence, the assumption of juri iction by Ld. JAO u/s 148 is in violation of mandatory juri ictional conditions as stipulated in Notification No 18/2022 dated 29th March 2022, which has been upheld by Juri ictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) as mandatory juri ictional condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.ws 144 read with section 1448 of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) is invalid and without juri iction since the income of the appellant is admittedly below the monetary limit as specified u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act viz. Rs 50 lakhs and which has been duly accepted by Ld. NaFAC hence, the very assumption of the juri iction u/s 148 of the Act for reopening the appellant's case is bad

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as there was no valid and proper sanction by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act as sanction is accorded by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Pune whereas since three years were elapsed, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal -469 ITR 46, the sanction ought have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune which admittedly not obtained and hence, the said notice as well as consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as they were issued without valid approval from the competent authority under section 151 of the Act.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as they were issued mechanically and without proper application of mind and hence, the impugned reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in a standard format without striking off the inapplicable reasons or specifying the exact basis for reopening, thereby the use of a generic, unmodified template without application of mind renders the notice vague. nonspeaking, and invalid in law, as held in various judicial precedents and consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such defective notice are liable to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.ws 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 12,92,967/-made by Ld. NaFAC u/s 69 of the Act and hence, the same is bad in law and thus. the impugned addition may please be deleted

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 2,73,180/-on account of Business Income which is incorrect both on facts and in law and which amounts to double taxation and hence, the said addition deserves to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. NaFAC has erred in not giving the credit of prepaid taxes of Rs 6,700 paid by the appellant while computing the tax demand.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the Ld. NaFAC erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the Ld. NaFAC erred in charging interest under sections 234A and 2348, and fees u/s 234F of the Act.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, vary, or withdraw all or any of grounds of appeal, in the interest of justice, if necessary, at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A)

The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised before the ld.CIT(A) are as under : “On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening the assessment by issue of notice u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer has erred in passing the assessment order without any proper juri iction.

2 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings issued notices. Assessee failed to comply these notices. Assessee has challenged validity of Reopening. This is a Legal Ground. It has not been adjudicated giving reasons. The ld.CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act.

In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 September, 2025. ASTHA CHANDRA