SHASHI BALA ,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information about large cash deposits and property transactions. The Assessing Officer added the unexplained bank deposits and property payments to the assessee's income under Sections 69A and 69, respectively, and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The assessee did not respond to notices.
Held
The CIT(Appeals) set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing an opportunity for hearing. The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) has the power to remand under Section 251(1)(a) when the assessment order is passed under Section 144.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, despite the initial assessment order being ex-parte under Section 144.
Sections Cited
250, 251(1)(a), 147, 148, 142(1), 144, 69A, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 426/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17
Shashi Bala, H. No. B2 68, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Bhagat Singh Colony, Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. Ballabhgarh (Haryana). PAN : CBJPB6984L (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Jitendra Jindal, CA Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR
Date of hearing 17.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10121756
by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has set aside
the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer in accordance with proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the
ITA No.426/Agr/2025
Act to frame a fresh assessment order after giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Brief facts state that the case of appellant assessee was reopened
u/s. 147 of the Act based on the information received that the assessee
had deposited cash of Rs.1,87,91,000/- in her bank accounts and made
transactions of immovable properties amounting to Rs.5,17,20,000/-.
Notice u/s. 148 of the Act and statutory notices u/s. 142(1) and show
cause notice u/s. 144 were also issued and served upon assessee
through whatsapp and by way of affixture. However, the assessee did not
file any response thereto. The Assessing Officer found total deposits in
assessee’s HDFC Bank account amounting to Rs.64,31,000/- and ICICI
bank account amounting to Rs.2,01,64,000/- totaling to Rs.2,65,95,000/-,
which remained unexplained on behalf of the assessee and added by the
Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act as
unexplained money. The Assessing Officer also noticed that the
assessee had made payment of Rs.5,17,00,000/- for purchase of
properties, out of which payments of Rs.2,20,00,000/- were from above
two bank accounts of the assessee and, therefore, the remaining
payment of Rs.2,97,00,000/- was added u/s. 69 of the Act as
unexplained investment and was taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act, vide
2 | P a g e
ITA No.426/Agr/2025
assessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the
Act.
Assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who
after making detailed discussion, set aside the assessment order and
remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing
assessment afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Aggrieved, aassessee preferred this second appeal mainly on the
ground that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in exercising his excess
jurisdiction u/s. 251(1)(a) of the Act by remitting the case back to the
Assessing Officer for passing the assessment afresh, ignoring the fact
that the assessment order, making said additions, was bad in law and
fact abi-initio.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for
assessee and learned DR for revenue.
We note that there is no dispute on the legal aspect that w.e.f.
01.10.2024, ld. CIT(Appeals) has been empowered, vide proviso to
section 251(1)(a) of the Act to remand the matter back to the Assessing
Officer in a case when the assessment order is passed u/s. 144 of the
Act. It also transpires from the perusal of record that the assessee did not
respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the
assessment proceedings, which led him to pass order u/s. 144 of the Act. 3 | P a g e
ITA No.426/Agr/2025
In our considered opinion, no prejudice is caused to the assessee if the
case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to comply with the
principles of natural justice. Rather, the assessee has been provided
further opportunity to properly explain her case before the Assessing
Officer. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessment so made
by the Assessing Officer was not passed after resorting to the provisions
of section 144 of the Act. We, therefore, do not deem it just and proper to
interfere in the wisdom of ld. CIT(Appeals) in referring the case to the
Assessing Officer back when the Assessing Officer has made such order
u/s. 144 of the Act. Said issue is accordingly decided against the
appellant/assessee.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2025 and reduced in writing on this 23 day of December, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.12.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
4 | P a g e
