Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the Assessees against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15. The core of the dispute revolved around the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) through the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency with its previous order in a similar case, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the controversy regarding the assumption of jurisdiction at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 143(2), with the assessee free to raise all related pleas.
Key Issues
Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO by issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was valid, and whether such notice was issued by the competent AO.
Sections Cited
143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessees against the orders of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘NFAC’ for short) Delhi dated 09/01/2024 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.
After arguing for sometimes, the Ld. Counsel for aa submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for A.Y 2015-16 in vide order dated 09/04/2025, remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide and determine the controversy raised towards issuance of notice under Section 143(2) for assumption of jurisdiction at the state of issuance of such notice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently contended that the notices have been issued by the competent A.O. and assumed the jurisdiction in accordance with law and the assessments have been framed by making additions on its merits, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for AY 2015-16 restored the issue to the file of the A.O. in following manners: - “2. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee adverted the additional ground of appeal
whereby the Assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO by issuing notice under s. 143(2) of the Act without having requisite authority in this regard.
3. In view of the fact that jurisdictional defect in issuance of notice by non-jurisdictional AO has been raised, which was not placed before the AO or before the CIT(A), it is in fitness of things to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO shall decide and determine the controversy raised towards issuance of notice under s. 143(2) for assumption of jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of such notice. The Assessee shall also be at liberty to raise all plea connected to such jurisdictional controversy.”
Considering the fact that Assessee has raised the identical additional grounds of appeal in all the above Appeals on the issue of issuance of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act for assumption of jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of such notice, in order to follow
J M Chemical Co. Vs. ACIT the principals of consistency, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide and determine the controversy raised towards issuance of notice under s. 143(2) for assumption of jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of such notice. The Assessee shall also be at liberty to raise all plea connected to the said additional Grounds of Appeal.
In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2026