Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee for AY 2012-13 due to alleged unexplained cash deposits and salary income. The assessee had not filed a return of income. The AO made additions under Section 69A for cash deposits and completed the assessment. The first appellate authority (NFAC) set aside the AO's order and restored the matter to the AO.
Held
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority erred by not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. The matter was restored to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication of this legal ground.
Key Issues
Whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the assessment order to the AO without adjudicating the additional ground of appeal concerning the lack of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order, as required by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 69A, 133(6), 144, 271(1)(c), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that as per information gathered by the Department from Network Management System (NMS) Portal, the assessee had earned salary income of Rs.17,50,162/- from FIIT JEE Ltd and had made cash deposit of Rs.11,50,000/- in his Saving Bank Account during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee neither filed return of income nor filed any written submission. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the details of salary received by him and the cash deposits made in his bank account. The submission of the assessee, vide reply dated 16.12.2019, was that he had earned salary of Rs.8,88,769/- and a TDS of Rs.1,56,022/- has been deducted thereon, in support of which the assessee filed copy of Form 26AS also before the AO. It was further submitted before the AO that out of the cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000/- in Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi, Rs.9,00,000/- was received in cash from his relatives and balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited out of his personal savings. However, the figure of Rs.17,77,538/- mentioned in the NMS Portal was treated as undisclosed salary of the assessee from the employer and added to the income of the assessee.
2.1 As per information available with the Department, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,50,000/- in his bank account maintained with Royal Bank of Scotland, Mumbai. In absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the source and genuineness of the cash deposits, the AO treated the same as the undisclosed money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act.
2.2 The AO also obtained bank statement of the assessee from Axis Bank under section 133(6) of the Act, as per which the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.4,50,500/- during the year under consideration. In the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the source and genuineness of these cash deposits, the AO treated the same also as the undisclosed money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act.
2.3 The AO completed the assessment under section 148/144 of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,77,540/-.
2.4 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately.
2.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter to AO’s file for deciding the same afresh as per provisions of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
2.6 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1) That the Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 250 Sub-Section (6) of the I.T. Act while disposing off appeal of the assessee. 2) That the Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has further erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee based on C.B.D.T. Circular No.19 dated 14th August 2019 regarding generation and issue of assessment order without DIN and admitted by him for adjudication, which goes to the root of the matter touching upon the legal validity of the assessment order. 3) That the Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has further erred in law and on facts in not following the aforesaid Circular of the Board and the judgements cited by the assessee in support of the above additional ground of appeal. 4) That the Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has further erred in law and on facts in not annulling/quashing the assessment order which was invalid and void ab-initio and in setting aside the assessment to the A.O. for fresh assessment. 5) That the appellate order is arbitrary, unjust, bad in law, excessive and against the principal of natural justice. 3.0 During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) inviting my attention to paragraphs 4.4 and 5.1 of the order of the NFAC, submitted that the legal ground raised by the assessee has been admitted by the NFAC vide paragraph 5.1 of its impugned order, but has not been adjudicated it. It was prayed by the Ld. A.R. the matter may be restored to the file of the NFAC with a direction to pass order on the legal ground raised by the assessee before it.
4.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.
5.0 I have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that the assessee had raised an additional ground of appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the validity of the assessment order on account of violation of Board’s Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019 laying down that no communication shall be issued by any Income Tax Authority, inter alia, relating to assessment orders, statutory or otherwise, enquiries, approvals, etc. to an assessee or any other person on or after October 1, 2019, unless a computer generated document identification number has been allotted and is quoted in the body of such communication. It was the contention of the assessee, in this additional ground before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, that the assessment order did not bear any Document Identification Number. Undisputedly, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has admitted this additional ground of appeal in page 10 of the impugned order. However, a further perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has restored the appeal to the file of the AO without adjudicating the additional ground raised by the assessee.
5.1 The Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in Eyegear Optics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in and 1291/Hyd/2024 dated 14.05.2025, vide order dated 14.05.2025, the Pune Bench of ITAT in Shamrao Gopal Benake vs. ITO in vide order dated 12.08.2025 and the Surat Bench of ITAT in Arun Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT in vide order dated 21.08.2025, have held that where the Ld. First Appellate Authority has specifically set aside the matters to the file of the AO for making fresh assessment without adjudicating the specific ground relating to validity of jurisdiction/assessment, the Ld. First Appellate Authority was not legally correct in doing so, as he ought to have adjudicated the issue regarding validity of assessment.
5.2 Respectfully following the same, I set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority setting aside the appeal before him to the file of the AO and direct the Ld. First Appellate Authority to adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee as additional ground, before passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.
6.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/12/2025.