Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure action was conducted on the Shayona Group, covering the assessee's residence, leading to parallel assessment proceedings under Section 153A and Section 153C by different tax authorities. Despite the assessee filing objections and a return of income (one day late), the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) passed ex-parte assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, allegedly without considering the return or affording a proper opportunity, and with a mechanically granted approval under Section 153D.
Held
The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, finding gross violations of natural justice, including the failure to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present the case and the mechanical granting of approval under Section 153D. The tribunal concluded that such assessment orders, passed in a hurried manner without application of mind, are not sustainable in law and cannot be restored for fresh assessment due to the AO's oversight of ongoing jurisdictional objections.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were validly framed given jurisdictional issues, parallel proceedings, and lack of mandatory notices. 2. Whether the assessment orders violated principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to the assessee and mechanical approval under Section 153D.
Sections Cited
250, 153A, 144, 143(3), 143(2), 132, 153C, 142(1), 153D, 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar
Asst.Year - 2014-15 1. Kalpesh Kantialal Patel 1. The ACIT बनाम/ C/o.M.S. Chhajed & Co. Central Circle-2(4) v/s. CA, Kamal Shanti Ahmedabad Nr. Under Bridge Sardar Patel Colony Ahmedabad – 380 014 2. The DCIT, 2. Shri Kalpesh Kantial Patel Central Circle-2(4) 32, Ambica Society Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 3. Shri Kalpesh Kantilal 3. The ACIT Patel, Ahmedabad Central Circle-2(4) Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAWPP 5054 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned cross appeals by the Assessee and the Revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 (cross-appeals) and another appeal preferred by the Assessee for AY 2014-15 are against the common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27/12/2017 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals and arise from the common search action dated 15/10/2013 in the group cases of Shayona Group in which the assessee was also covered, hence, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
The assessee, in his appeals, has taken legal issues as the very validity of the assessments framed u/s.153A of the Act for AY 2013-14 and u/s.144/143(3) of the Act for AY 2014-15. The contention of the ld.AR is that the said assessments have been framed without issuing the mandatory notices by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.153A of the Act as well as u/s.143(2) of the Act. He has further contended that even the assessments have been framed in a hurried manner without affording opportunity to the assessee to defend the impugned additions and even without considering the return of income filed by the assessee.
3. As requested by both the Ld. Representatives of the parties, the legal issues raised by the assessee are taken up first for adjudication. . Assessee’s appeal in IT(SS) No.46/Ahd/2018 for AY 2013-14 is taken as the lead case.
The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the cases of Shayona Group of cases on 15/10/2023, wherein, the residence of the assessee was also covered, pursuant to which the assessment order dated 30/03/2016 u/s.153A of the Act was passed in IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 by Assessee IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 by Revenue And Assessee - Kalpesh Kantilal Patel AYs : 2013-14 & 2014-15 3 the case of the assessee. As per the Ld.AR of the assessee, the said assessment order has been passed without issuing the mandatory jurisdictional notices u/s.153A of the Act and section 143(2) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant here to state the chronology of the events.
4.1. Earlier, a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of third party -Vikas Shah Group of cases. Pursuant to that, case of the assessee was centralized with DCIT Central Circle-2(1) Ahmedabad on 11/10/2013. Thereafter, notices u/s.153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18/02/2014. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s 153A of the Act on 16.07.2014. However, since the name of the assessee was not covered under the warrant of search in the said search action, therefore the assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act were dropped in the case of the assessee on 30/11/2014 and it was proposed to initiate assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act.
4.2. In the meantime, a search action was carried out in the case of Shayona Group on 15/10/2013 in which the residential premises of the assessee was also covered. Pursuant to the said search action, the case of the assessee was centralized with the DCIT, Cen.Cir-2(4) Ahmedabad by Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad vide his order dated 14/03/2014. Thereafter, a notice u/s.153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26/08/2014 by the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) Ahmedabad. The assessee filed objections against the said notice stating that notice u/s.153A had already been issued by the DCIT, Cent.Cir-2(1) on 18/02/2014 (as stated earlier) and that the assessee has already filed his return of income u/s.153A of the Act on 16/07/2014 with DCIT Cent.Cir-2(1) Ahmedabad.
4.3. However, in the meantime, the CIT (Central), Ahmedabad vide order dated 25/11/2014 transferred the jurisdiction to DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) for the purpose of carrying out assessment in the case of the assessee u/s 153C of the Act because of the incriminating material found against the assessee during the search action in Vikas Group of cases. Thereafter, the Ld. DCIT Cent.Cir- 2(2) proceeded to frame assessment u/s.153C of the Act and he issued notice u/s.153C of the Act on 27/2/2015. 4.4. It is relevant to mention here that pursuant to the search action in the case of the assessee, though initial assessment proceedings were started u/s.153A of the Act by the DCIT Cent.Cir-2(4) on 14/03/2014, however, the case was transferred by the CIT (Central) on 25/11/2014 to DCIT Cent.Cir- 2(2) and a parallel proceedings were initiated u/s.153C of the Act by way of issuing notice dated 27/2.2015. However, the DCIT Cent.Cir-2(4) was unaware of the aforesaid parallel proceedings. He continued to proceed with the assessment u/s.153A of the Act by way of issuing notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, etc. The assessee, however, filed objections against the aforesaid parallel assessment proceedings going on and objected to the jurisdiction DCIT Cent.Cir-2(4) to frame the assessment u/s.153A of the Act on the ground that his case has been transferred by the competent authority, i.e. DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) vide order dated 25/11/2014. 4.5. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the relevant para at Page No.5 of the assessment order, wherein, the AO in the ongoing proceedings u/s.153A of the Act unaware of the transfer of jurisdiction to DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) had issued to the assessee a notice u/s.142(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act to provide the necessary details and file the IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 by Assessee IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 by Revenue And Assessee - Kalpesh Kantilal Patel AYs : 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 income-tax return u/s.153A of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee though filed objections against the exercise of jurisdiction by the ACIT Centr.Cir-2(4) filed reply in DAK on 21/03/2016 requesting the return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 22/12/2013 to be treated as filed in response to the notices issued u/s.153A of the Act.
4.6. When the aforesaid lapse came into the notice of the competent authority, then the Ld. Principal CIT (Central) vide his order dated 21/03/2016 transferred the case from DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) to ACIT Cent.Cir- 2(4).
4.7. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that after the mistake was corrected and the case was transferred by the Ld. Principal CIT (Central) vide his order dated 21/03/2016 formerly to the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) Ahmedabad, the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) issued a fresh notice to the assessee u/s.153A of the Act on 22/03/2016 requiring the assessee to file the return of income by 28/03/2016. Though the assessee again raised the objection about the jurisdiction of the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4), however, filed the return of income u/s.153A of the Act on 29/03/2016. The copy of the acknowledgement as well as computation of income has been attached at page No.17 of the paper- book. The Ld. ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4), however, did not consider the said return and proceeded to pass the assessment order ex-parte of the assessee u/s.144 of the Act and passed the impugned assessment order on 30/03/2016 by observing as under: “7. Since no returns have been filed in response to the Notice u/s.153A of the I.T.Act issued from this office on 23/03/2016, the assessments are done exparte u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act considering the materials available on record and also considering the submissions given by the Assessee during the course of the proceedings earlier. The additions/disallowance are discussed below:”
Now the contention of the Ld.AR is that the case of the assessee having been transferred by the competent authority on 25/11/2014 to the DCIT Cent.Cir-2 (2) Ahmedabad, the notices issued by ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) after 25/11/2014 were without any valid jurisdiction and that the proceedings done before 25/11/2014 get invalidated because of start of fresh proceedings with effect from 25/11/2014 u/s.153C of the Act. Thereafter, the proceedings, u/s.153A of the Act were started a-fresh subsequent to the transfer of the case from DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) to ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) vide order of the competent authority dated 21/03/2016. On 22/03/2016, the Ld. ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) issued a fresh notice to the assessee u/s.153A of the Act requiring the assessee to file the return of income by 28/03/2016. This fact itself shows that the earlier proceedings carried out by the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) u/s.153A of the Act were treated as dropped and fresh proceedings were initiated u/s.153A of the Act requiring the assessee to file the return by 28/03/2016. Here, it is pertinent to mention here that as observed above, the assessee in response to the earlier notices issued by ACIT Cent. Cir.- 2(4 ) had already filed letters stating that earlier filed return for AY 22/12/2013 be treated the return filed in response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act. However, at that time, the jurisdiction lied with DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2). However, after the transfer of jurisdiction to him vide order dated 21.03.2016, the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) (AO) issued a fresh notice dated 22/03/2016 asking the assessee to file the return of income u/s.153A of the Act, which shows that the AO after the transfer of the case by the competent authority on 21/03/2016 from DCIT Centr.Cir-2(2) to the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) started fresh assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act.
At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised another issue to the effect that though the order by the Principal CIT (Central) transferring the case of the assessee to ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) was passed on 21/03/2016, however, the same communicated to the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) on 23/03/2016. He, in this respect, has invited our attention to the copy of the letter dated 21/03/2016 of the Principal CIT (Central) Ahmedabad which bears dispatch stamp showing that the said order was dispatched by the Office of the Principal CIT (Central) Ahmedabad on 23/03/2016. The Ld. AR of the assessee has, therefore, stated that since the said order transferring case of the assessee from DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) Ahmedabad to the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) was dispatched on 23/03/2016, therefore, the notice issued by the ACIT Cent.Cir- 2(4) u/s.153A of the Act on 22/03/2016 was without having coming to his knowledge of transfer of jurisdiction to him as the same was communicated to him on 23.03.2016.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even otherwise, non-consideration of the return of income filed by the assessee and thereafter immediately passing of the ex-parte assessment order on 30/03/2016 shows that, in this case, even the approval granted by the higher Officer/JCIT u/s.153D of the Act was also without application of mind and was granted hurriedly in a mechanical manner, even without going into the basic facts of the case and even without noticing that the assessee had very well filed return of income which was not considered by the AO. Even no opportunity was granted to the assessee by the AO after initiation of fresh assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act and that the impugned assessment order was passed within two days from the date given to the assessee vide notice issued u/s 153A of the Act to file his return of income.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. So far as the contention of the Ld.AR that notice issued u/s.153A of the Act dated 22/3/2016 by the AO/ACIT, Cent.Cir-2(4) was without jurisdiction as the order conferring his jurisdiction by the Pr.CIT (Central) dated 21/03/2016 was communicated/dispatched to him on 23/03/2016 is concerned, we do not find any force of the said contention. It is apparent on the record that the case was transferred to the ACIT Cen.Cir-2(4) by the competent authority on 21/03/2016 and, hence, from 21/03/2016 the concerned ACIT Cen.Cir-2(4) had gotten the jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act. Merely because there is a stamp on the document that the said document was dispatched on 23/03/2016, in our view, does not have any adverse effect so far as the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) u/s.153A is concerned. It is possible that the communication would have been made to the AO through some other mode also, otherwise there was no reason for the AO to issue a fresh notice u/s.153A of the Act to the assessee on 22/03/2016. The very factum of issue of fresh notice u/s.153A of the Act requiring the assessee to file the return of income by 28/03/2016, itself, shows that the AO by that time already got communication of the said order of the Ld.Pr.CIT (Central), Ahmedabad and that is why he issued the fresh notice u/s.153A of the Act. Had it been not so, there was no requirement for the concerned AO/ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) to issue a fresh notice u/s.153A of the Act to the assessee. As observed above, under a misconception, the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) was already proceeded with the assessment u/s.153A of the Act from the very beginning i.e. from 14/3/2014 unawares of and irrespective of the fact that the case stood transferred by the competent authority to the DCIT, Cent.Cir-2(2) on IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 by Assessee IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 by Revenue And Assessee - Kalpesh Kantilal Patel AYs : 2013-14 & 2014-15 9 25/11/2014. It is the communication of the transfer of the case vide letter dated 21/03/2016 that triggered the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) to issue a fresh notice u/s.153A of the Act. Therefore, this contention of the Ld.AR has no force.
7.1. However, we find force in the contention of the Ld.AR that in this case assessment has been framed in a hurried manner without giving any opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The assessee was required to file the return of income u/s.153A of the Act by 28/03/2016, which was filed by the assessee on 29/03/2016 and the impugned assessment order was passed u/s.144 of the Act ex-parte of the assessee on 30/03/2016 itself, and surprisingly, in the meantime the approval u/s.153D of the Act of the competent authority was also obtained. In this case, the assessee was required to file the return of income by 28/03/2016 and the assessment order was passed on 30/03/2016 within two days, despite the fact that the assessee had filed the return on 29/03/2016 itself, which shows that the principles of natural justice has been violated in this case and there is no application of mind at all to the facts and circumstances of the case either by the AO or by the JCIT, while granting approval u/s.153D of the Act. Such an assessment order passed on by the AO without application of mind , in our view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law especially also the same was devoid of a valid approval u/s.153D of the Act by the competent authority. It has been held time and again that an assessment order without a valid approval u/s.153D of the Act, wherein, the facts and circumstances show that such approval has been granted without application of mind and in a mechanical manner, is not sustainable in law. Reliance in this respect can be relied in the following cases:
IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 by Assessee IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 by Revenue And Assessee - Kalpesh Kantilal Patel AYs : 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 1. Inder International vs. ACIT, of 2018, Chandigarh ITAT.
2. Sanjay Duggal vs. ACIT, of 2019, Delhi ITAT.
PCIT vs. Shreelekha Damani, 307 CTR 218, Bombay High Court.
4. ACIT vs Serajjudin & Co., 454 ITR 312, Orissa High Court, which is affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No(s). 44989/2023 dtd. 28.11.2023.
5. PCIT vs Siddharth Gupta, 450 ITR 534, Allahabad High Court.
6. CIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar, 8 NYPCTR 1064, Delhi High Court.
7. PCIT vs Anuj Bansal, 7 NYPCTR 1020, Delhi High Court.
PCIT Versus Sapna Gupta [2022 (12) TMI 887], (Allahabad HC)
9. DCIT Central vs Utility supply (P) Limited. [2025] 174 Taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai – Trib)
10. Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure (P) Limited [2025] 175 Taxmann.com 615 (Nagpur ITAT).
7.2. Moreover, the principles of natural justice have not been followed and the assessment has been framed without application of mind and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Therefore, the same is bad in law on this score also.
8. So far as the contention of the Ld. DR that the matter may be restored to the file of AO for fresh assessment is concerned, we do not find force in the same as in this case the assessee from the very beginning has objected to the jurisdiction of the ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) and has made him aware by way of IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 by Assessee IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 by Revenue And Assessee - Kalpesh Kantilal Patel AYs : 2013-14 & 2014-15 11 various objections that the parallel proceedings have been going on firstly with the DCIT Cent.Cir-2(4) u/s.153A of the Act and thereafter with the DCIT Cent.Cir-2(2) u/s.153C of the Act as the case of the assessee was transferred to them on the dates as mentioned above by the competent authority by way of passing order u/s.127 of the Act. However, despite all these objections the AO, i.e. ACIT Cent.Cir-2(4) did not bother to convey this lapse to his superior/competent authority nor taken any remedial action. Therefore, no fault can be attributed on the part of the assessee in this respect. The remedial action was taken at the fag-end when the assessment was going to be time- barred and within a span of 4 – 5 days the assessment order was passed as noted above and without granting any opportunity to the assessee to present his case and even the approval was granted by the competent authority without application of mind and in a mechanical manner even without noticing even the filing of the return of income by the assessee. Therefore, such an assessment order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same is, accordingly, hereby quashed.
The identical facts are there in the case of Assessee’s appeal in AY 2014-15. In this case no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO after valid transfer of case to him by the competent authority. Even the assessment order is bad in law for want of following the principles of natural justice, no opportunity given to the assessee to present his case and also for want of a legally valid approval u/s 153D of the Act. In view of our discussion made above, both the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are hereby quashed.
Since we have quashed the assessment orders on legal ground, therefore, no adjudication is made on the merits of the additions as the same has been rendered academic in nature at this stage.
In view of our observation made above, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.46/Ahd/2018 for AY 2013-14 & in AY 2014-15 are hereby allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.52/Ahd/2018 for AY 2013-14 is hereby dismissed.