Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee bank filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2016-17. The assessee raised multiple grounds, including validity of assessment, reopening, and additions made by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee, merely setting aside the AO's order and referring it back. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide on these legal grounds.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order and failing to adjudicate legal and jurisdictional grounds, including the validity of reopening and assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
[PAN : AAAAP5507G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms Himali Mistry, AR Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“the CIT(A) in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) Ex-parte (1) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order when the appellant was in the process of identifying the documents and compiling the response. (2) The appellant deserves an opportunity of being heard, which is a corner stone to the natural justice. (II) Validity of the assessment Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– (1) The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming validity of the assessment on the grounds of 148A(d) order which deals with reopening and not with the ground where the appellant challenged that assessment made in a post haste, defeating natural justice requiring to be quashed, particularly when the appellant requested to submit details in a fortnight's time. (2) The CIT(A) not having dealt with the ground by seeking remand, the matter may be restored to the lower authority (3) With the assessment having been framed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer, the assessment lacks jurisdiction and is required to be quashed. (III) Reopening (1) The reopening under notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(d) dated 23-7-2022 being beyond the surviving period as per the Supreme Court decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70), are bad in law and are required to be quashed (2) With the statutory approval u/s. 151 taken from PCIT instead of PCCIT, the reopening suffers from the required legal approval in terms of Supreme Court decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (167 taxmann.com 70), the reopening fails to satisfy required conditions of reopening. (3) With the notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer, reopening is required to be cancelled. (4) Even otherwise, reopening having been done without satisfying valid conditions of reopening, reopening is required to be dropped (IV) Addition of Rs. 10,50,00,000 (1) With Rs. 10,50,00,000 having clear source with the appellant, the addition is required to be deleted. (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred seriously in making addition while seeking confirmations from the customers who had deposited cash into bank without realizing that the appellant is a bank where it deals with humongous amount of volume each day and that it is simply impractical and difficult to obtain confirmations from the customers (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition so made is unwarranted and is required to be deleted. (V) Miscellaneous: (1) All of the above grounds are without prejudicial to one another. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in for AY 2013-14 dated 10.11.2025. For the sake of ready reference, the operative portion of said order is reproduced as under:
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decision relied upon by Id. AR of the appellant. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had raised four grounds of appeal (13 sub-grounds) before the CIT(A), which include jurisdictional and legal issues on validity of reopening and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Such grounds are at serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal (8 sub-grounds) before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not decided the jurisdictional and legal grounds and has simply set aside the order of AO and referred the case back to AO for making a fresh assessment. The Co-ordinate Benches of Hyderabad in case of Eyegear Optics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in & 1291/Hyd/2024, dated 14.05.2025, held that where assessment was reopened in case of assessee u/s 147 of the Act and was completed u/s 144 of the Act disallowing some expenditures, the CIT(A) instead of summarily setting aside matter to the file of AO for making fresh assessment, ought to have taken a call as regards specific ground based on which validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by AO or framing re-assessment was assailed by assessee before him. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the specific jurisdictional ground. Further, under similar facts and circumstances, the Pune Tribunal in the case of Shamrao Gopal Benake vs. ITO, in dated 12.08.2025 has also set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh adjudicating all the grounds including legal grounds raised by the assessee. In case of Tours5 Com (supra), the ITAT, Hyderabad has also held that the power to set aside order u/s 144 of the Act does not absolve the CIT(A) from adjudicating legal issues, particularly validity of jurisdiction assumed by AO for making assessment or reassessment. The facts of the instant appeal are similar to the facts of the cases cited supra. We do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the co-ordinate Benches (supra). Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh by adjudicating of the grounds including the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the appellant after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the absence of any change in factual matrix and legal proposition brought to our notice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.01.2026.