Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed appeals against CIT(A) orders for multiple assessment years, raising an additional ground concerning the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to alleged defects in the issuance of notices under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. A similar jurisdictional issue in the Assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 was previously remanded by the Tribunal to the AO.
Held
Following the principle of consistency, and noting that the Assessee raised identical additional grounds in the present appeals, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide and determine the controversy regarding the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the assumption of jurisdiction at that stage, with the Assessee having the liberty to raise all connected pleas.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction by issuing a notice under Section 143(2) when there was an alleged jurisdictional defect or lack of requisite authority at the time of its issuance.
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