GO IRON MARKETING,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), VISHAKAPATNAM

ITA 483/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Balakrishnan S. (Accountant Member)27 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice and order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the faceless mechanism were bad in law and illegal, as only a Faceless Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on information about significant transactions by the assessee. The assessee failed to file a return, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment but reduced the estimated profit margin.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the faceless mechanism were valid. Whether the estimation of profit by the authorities below was reasonable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

Before: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

PER. RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 26/07/2025 which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 01/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. That under the facts and circum

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →