JIMIT RAJESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

order : 15.07.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 29/12/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2012- 13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had Dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 21/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The Ld. AO erred in reopening the Assessment U/s.148. 3. The Honourable CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147. 4. The Honourable CIT(A) erred in relying on the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Garware Nylons Limited, 1995 212 ITR 242. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal

as the circumstances may require or occasion may demand.

6. The order of the Honourable CIT(A) and the assessing officer are bad in Law and hence the same are required to be set a side in the interest of justice and equity.

3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

4. The solitary grievance of the Appellant is that the CIT(A) has declined to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order, dated 21/12/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with 143(3) of the Act as no additions were made to income as assessed during regular scrutiny proceedings controlled under Section 143(3) of the Act. Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the aforesaid grievance shall stand redressed in case the order impugned is set aside with the directions to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Learned Departmental Representative had no objections to the aforesaid preposition. Accordingly, the order dated 21/12/2018, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal filed before the CIT(A) is restored with the 2 Assessment Year 2012-13 directions to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Appellant challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed.

5. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.