Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened for A.Y. 2015-16 based on cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance without deciding on merits, following an assessment order under sections 144 r.w.s. 147 and a penalty order under section 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the income was already declared by a proprietary concern, alleging double taxation, and sought an opportunity to present facts.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to verify the assessee's claim of double taxation and the details provided in Form No. 35. With the Revenue's consent, the Tribunal set aside both the assessment and penalty orders to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary details.
Key Issues
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings and addition under Section 69A when income was allegedly declared by a proprietary concern, leading to double taxation. 2. Whether CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on non-compliance without considering merits and violating natural justice. 3. Procedural compliance of reassessment notices under Sections 148/148A with the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 271(1)(c), 69A, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER BENCH : These two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16 both dated 20.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 22.02.2023 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 10.08.2023 & 2327/PUN/2025 [A] respectively. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat appeal in as lead appeal. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. On the facts and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short Ld. CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellant without deciding the merits of the matter when all the relevant documents were filed at the time of filing of the appeal.
2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer [in short Ld. AO)] when the impugned addition made in the hands of the Appellant is prima facie illegal. Since, the alleged income has been recorded and disclosed in the hands of Janakee Petrolium having PAN ABKPR6589A (proprietary concern).
3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered submissions made by the Appellant at the time of filing of the Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned Order which is in gross violations of principle of natural justice.
4. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition under Section 69A of the Act when the alleged income has been declared and disclosed in the hands of proprietary concern ABKPR6589A and therefore, the statutory conditions for invoking Section 69A of the Act is not met. Therefore, the impugned addition made under Section 69A of the Act of Rs. 1,27,02,253/- is bad in law and is liable to be deleted.
ITA Nos.2322 & 2327/PUN/2025 [A]
On the facts and in law, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law since, the mandatory condition that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not met in this case since, the alleged income has already been declared in PAN of ABKPR6589A and the tax on the said income has duly been paid. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148/148A is bad in law.
On the facts and in law, the mandatory conditions in Section 147 of the Act which are jurisdictional requirements, not fulfilled and hence, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 and consequently issuance of the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void-ab-initio.
7. On the facts and in law, Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act ought to have been issued incompliance to Section 151A of the Act r.w. E Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 dated 29th March, 2022 as held in the decision of Kairos Properties Private Limited (Supra).
On the facts and in law, the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued in faceless manner as stipulated by the E-Assessment of income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 (Notified on 29th March, 2022). After the notification of the said Scheme dated 29/03/2022, Respondent No.1 was ceased of the jurisdiction to issue the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28/03/2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors. in WP 3 No. 1778 of 2023. & 2327/PUN/2025 [A]
The appellant craves, leave to add to alter, modify, revise, or delete any ground (s) in the interest of justice.”
Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the case, Assessment Order has been passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 22.02.2023 for A.Y.2015-16, assessing the total income at Rs.1,27,45,994/-. Assessee’s case was reopened based on the information of cash deposits on the Insight Portal of the Income Tax Department.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance without discussing grounds of appeal.
Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee admitted that due to certain family constraints, Assessee could not comply to notices. However, ld.AR submitted that the cash deposits have already been offered in the case of Janakee Petrolium, proprietary concern. Ld.AR submitted that there are two concerns in the name of Janakee Petrolium - one is partnership concern and another is proprietary concern. Ld.AR submitted that since in the 4 & 2327/PUN/2025 [A] interest of justice, as there is double taxation, Assessee may be provided one more opportunity to explain the facts. Ld.AR also pleaded that case may be set-aside to the Assessing Officer, so that Assessing Officer could verify these basic facts.
5. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue had not objected to setting aside the case to Assessing Officer.
6. It has been pleaded by assessee that same income has been taxed twice once in the hands of proprietary concern and another time in the hands of partnership concern. This aspect has not been verified. Assessee in Form No.35 had mentioned all these details along with PAN numbers of both the concerns. However, ld.CIT(A) had not verified the basic facts mentioned by Assessee in Form No.35. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Assessing Office shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary details before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA Nos.2322 & 2327/PUN/2025 [A]
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. PENALY APPEAL for A.Y.2015-16 8. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for denovo verification, we also set-aside the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 10.08.2023 to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, this penalty appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.