SHASHI BALA,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 August 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 69,Section 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

Hearing: 17.12.2025Pronounced: 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 Act to frame a fresh assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

2.

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 assessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and learned DR for revenue.

6.

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 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.

7.

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.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →