Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order. The assessee contended that the jurisdiction assumed by the AO was invalid due to improper service of notice under section 148, and several additions were made without proper consideration of evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had drawn summary conclusions without properly analyzing the facts of the case, especially in light of the controversy regarding multiple PAN numbers issued to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was valid due to proper service of notice, and whether the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified based on the evidence.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 234A, 234B, 234C, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 25.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 23.12.2017 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;- “1 The learned CIT[A] has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of a purported notice u/s 148, with details in the order, which was not served and thus invalid
2. The learned CIT|A] has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of notices for which procedure laid by law for service was not followed.
3. That in the absence of valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessment proceedings and consequent assessment framed are invalid and bad in law 4.1 The learned CIT[A] has erred in upholding the addition of the total value of the flats booked of Rs 1,12,93,215 from Unitech to be paid over a number of years as paid in the very first year on surmises and presumptions -in utter disregard to the additional evidences which learned AO agreed to admission 4.2 The learned CIT[A] has erred in not even considering the payments aggregating to Rs 31,98,366 (23,27,138+8,71,228) made for the two flats to Unitech from his bank account with proof of sources in utter disregard to the additional evidences which learned AO agreed to admission 5.1 The learned CIT[A] has erred in upholding the addition of Rs2,82,782 (Commission - 2,50,000 + Bank Interest 32,782) as per 26AS statement but not granting credit for the TDS appearing in the same statement 5.2 The learned CITIA] has erred in not even considering and deleting the bank interest of Rs.32,782 admitted as Income from Other Sources in the ITR in utter disregard to the additional evidences which learned AO agreed to admission 5.3 The learned CITIA] has erred in not even considering and deleting the Commission of Rs2,50,000 admitted as Income from Other Sources in the ITR in utter disregard to the additional evidences which learned AO agreed to admission. 6 The learned CITAl has erred in not directing that Credit be granted for prepaid taxes of Rs 28,278 (3278+25000) 7 That The tax demand raised is wrong 8 The Interest charged u/s 234A is wrong 9 That Interest charged u/s 234B is wrong Page 2 of 5
10 That Interest charged u/s 234C is wrong.”
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A), since, the appeal has been dismissed in a summary manner. The ld. Counsel invited our attention to the following grounds of appeal raised before the ld. CIT(A) as available on page-2 of the appellate order.
“1. The learned AO has erred assuming jurisdiction on the basis of a purported notice u/s 148, with details in the order, which was not served and thus invalid.
The learned AO has erred assuming jurisdiction on the basis of a purported notice u/s 148, with details in the order, which was not served and thus invalid.
The learned AO has erred in adding the total value of the flat of Rs. 11293215/-purchased from Unit each paid over a number of years as paid in one year on surmises and presumptions without collecting proper information.
4. The learned AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 282782/- as undisclosed income on the basis of statement statement but not granting credit for the TDS appearing in the same statement.
5. The learned AO has erred in making an addition of Rs 250000 of Commission Credit as undisclosed income without allowing any expenses 4. During the course of appellate proceedings, notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on various dates. The appellant has filed the submissions.”
It was argued that it had raised legal grounds before the ld. CIT(A) comprising grounds of appeal no.1 and 2, which remained unadjudicated and or Page 3 of 5 dismissed in a summary manner. Request was accordingly made for remission back to the ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, the ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities.
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. We have noted that the assessee had indeed raised grounds of appeal
no.1 and 2 challenging the legal validity of the notices under section 148. We have also noted from pages 13 to 15 of the appellate order that the ld. CIT(A) has drawn summary conclusions without properly analyzing the various facts of the case. The same was particularly necessary in view of the controversy of three different PAN number issued to the assessee. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to remit this matter to ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with statutory notices issued by the ld. First Appellate Authority.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21ST January, 2026.