Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had set aside the Assessment Order. The Assessee contended that the reopening of assessment was without jurisdiction and mandatory notices were not served. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on AIR information regarding the purchase of immovable property, and later framed assessment under Section 144 after the Assessee did not respond.
Held
The Tribunal noted that despite repeated opportunities and directions, the Revenue failed to produce the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal drew a negative inference against the Revenue and accepted the Assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without complying with Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the non-production of reasons for reopening.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 148(2), 250, 251, 292BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mohd Shafi Isamail Merchant 803, Panchvati Panch Marg, Off. Yari Road, Versova, Mumbai – 400061. Maharahstra [PAN: AAMPM85055H] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1) Vs Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400012. …………. Maharashtra Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ashwin Chhag For the Respondent/Department : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati Date Conclusion of hearing : 09.01.2026 Pronouncement of order : 20.01.2026
O R D E R
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The Assessee has preferred the present appeal against the Order, dated 24/12/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had set-aside the Assessment Order, dated 06/03/2014, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 in terms of First Proviso to Section 251 the Act.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
1. That while ld. NFAC(A) set-aside the case back to NFAC(A), failed to appreciate and resolving the grounds of appeal that this reopening by the ld. AO is without jurisdiction. Ld. NFAC(A) Assessment Year 2006-2007 should have resolved the issue of jurisdiction raised prior to set it aside back to the AO.
2. That the order of the ld. NFCA(A) setting aside the matter back to the AO is arbitrary in the circumstances where all the fact are on the record, including the agreement which is alleged to have not on record, and issue raised are jurisdictional and legal in nature. It has gone unnoticed that the jurisdiction of CIT(A) is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer.
3. The Assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2006- 2007 reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee on the basis of AIR-Information available with the Assessing Officer to the effect that the Assessee had invested INR.43,62,400/- in purchase of immovable property during the relevant previous year. According to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee did not respond to the notices issued during the course of hearing. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment on the Assessee under Section 144 of the Act. After taking into consideration copy of the registered agreement furnished by the Joint Sub-