SNIGDHA JAIN,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE

AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 without any variation, hence there arose no dispute for those years. However, the AO made additions in other four (4) AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15. Therefore, the assessee carried matters of those four (4) years in four (4) separate appeals before CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of all four (4) appeals through a single consolidated order dated 21.05.2024 dismissing all appeals.

(v) Now, the assessee has come in this bunch of four (4) appeals before us.

IT(SS)A No. 64 to 66/Ind/2024 of Three (3) AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13:

Ld. AR submitted that these are search matters and the AO has made substantial additions in the hands of assessee only for the reason that the initial surrender was made by assessee. The AO has, however, made corresponding protective additions in the hands of “Shri Hansraj Jain”, father-in-law of assessee. Since the cases of father-in-law are also being remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, these cases of assessee must also be restored at the level of CIT(A). Ld. AR asserted in open court that the assessee is ready and willing to make an effective representation and extend full co-operation to CIT(A). He prayed that, in the interest of justice and fair play, these three (3) matters must be restored at the level of CIT(A). He acknowledged that the assessee shall abide by any direction given by bench.

We also take into account Ld. AR’s submission that the assessee is a lady and not well-versed with tax procedures, hence there exists sufficient cause for non-compliance. We also note that similar issues in connected cases of assessee’s father-in-law are being restored to the file of CIT(A) through a separate order of even date. Therefore, following consistency and to avoid conflicting decisions on inter-connected facts, the present matters also deserve to be restored. The Ld. AR for assessee has also assured that the assessee shall extend full co-operation in fresh proceedings. Therefore, considering these aspects, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to assessee by way of remanding these matters to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. In case, however, the assessee does not fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of remanded proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) will be at liberty to take such action, apart from disposal of appeals based on material on record, as he deems fit, proper and judicious. Therefore, these matters are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after affording yet another opportunity of hearing to assessee, by way of a speaking order, and in accordance with the law. However, in order to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing these three (3) cases of assessee, we impose a small cost of Page 5 of 7 Rs. 5,000/- per case to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through appropriate challan. The assessee shall submit a copy of duly paid challans to CIT(A) during the proceeding of fresh adjudication and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment.

1. That, the learned AO has grossly erred, in law, in passing the Assessment Order for the relevant assessment year on the strength of an invalid Notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on 18-09-2015, without first having any return of income on record. Such an action of the Ld. AO has rendered the entire assessment proceedings as void ab initio, invalid, illegal and a nullity.

2. That, the learned AO has grossly erred, in law, in passing the Assessment Order for the relevant assessment year without first issuing and serving a valid Notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 subsequent to the filing of the return of income by the appellant under the provisions of section 139 of the Act. The failure to issue such notice vitiates the assessment proceedings and renders the assessment order as void ab initio, without jurisdiction, illegal and non-est in law.”

8. We have decided identical grounds in appeal No. of AY 2014-15 of assessee’s father-in-law “Shri Hansraj Jain” and accepted that the AO lacked jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 143(2) there being complete absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2). Finally, we have declared the assessment-order as void ab initio and quashed. Since the facts and law are same, the adjudication made by us in the appeal of “Shri

Page 6 of 7 Hansraj Jain” will apply mutadis mutandis. Accordingly, these additional grounds of assessee are allowed.