SUNITA TULI,PATHANKOT vs. ITO WARD-1, PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen and widow, had her assessment reopened under Section 147 for cash deposits totaling Rs. 55.89 lakhs. She contended that the actual deposits were Rs. 49.76 lakhs, making the reassessment beyond three years time-barred under Section 149(1)(b). The CIT(A) set aside the assessment for fresh assessment without adjudicating the legal grounds.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's old age, medical ailments, and lack of legal guidance. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which struck at the root of jurisdiction, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of these grounds.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of the reassessment notice issued by the JAO under Section 148, the limitation period for reassessment based on the actual cash deposit amount, and the validity of the approval granted under Section 151 on incorrect facts.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 149(1)(b), Section 151, Section 151A, Section 250, Section 142(1), Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 04.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act,
1961 dated 16.03.2023.
2 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed
belatedly by 94 (ninety-four) days. The assessee has prayed for condonation of delay
in presenting the appeal whereby it is stated that the appellate order has been uploaded in portal probably on 4th Feb, 2025, but due to various medical ailments suffered by
the assessee on account of old age, and also due to lack of proper legal guidance, the
appellant could not take timely steps to file the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. It
is also stated that the assessee is a senior citizen without any regular income and
subsequent to the death of her husband, she never had the guidance of any legal
practitioners and she herself was totally unaware of the technical aspect relating to
income tax matters. After receiving a fresh notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated
07.07.2025, she has approached a lawyer, who had advised her to file the present appeal
before the Hon’ble Tribunal, against the order of the Ld. first appellate authority, which
has been belatedly filed by 94 days. She has prayed for condonation of delay in absence
of any willful or intentional default on her part, and requested for admission of the
appeal to be heard on merits.
The ld. DR has no objection.
Considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and a widow and has no
legal assistance and admittedly, without any knowledge on technical aspect of the
computer system , we find that she had reasonable cause, being unable to file the
3 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16
appeal within the stipulated time and we consider the default is neither willful nor
intentional , and as such, we condone the delay of 94 days and admit the appeal to be
heard on merits.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not adjudicating the specific ground taken by the appellant challenging the validity of the notice issued by JAO u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2022, which is illegal and void in view of CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued in terms of sec 151A of the Act, mandating such notice to be issued only in faceless manner, as categorically held by Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs UOI & Ors dated 19.07.2024 in CWP-15745-2024 (2024) 467 ITR 52 (P&H) and followed in its another order dated 29.07.2024 in CWP-21509-2023 in the case of Jasjit Singh vs UOI & Ors and connected cases.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the specific legal ground that the reassessment was barred by limitation as per sec 149(1)(b), the total cash deposits in two banks actually being Rs.49,76,500/- i.e. below Rs.50 lacs, against Rs.55,89,500/- incorrectly assumed by AO, by wrongly taking the deposits in one account at Rs.15,13,000/- whereas actual deposits in that account were only Rs.9,00,000/-. Thus, the reopening beyond three years was time- barred, and the assessment deserves to be annulled.
That the reasons recorded by AO and approval granted by PCIT u/s.151 on incorrect facts, by assuming cash deposits at Rs.55,89,500/- against actual deposits of Rs.49,76,500/- is patently mechanical and illegal, as recently held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tele Performance Global Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 298 Taxman 769 (Bom) (HC)”
Brief facts of the case are that no return of income has been filed by the assessee
for the year under appeal. On the basis of information that the assessee has deposited
4 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 the cash amounting to Rs.55.89 (fifty-five) lakhs in her two Bank A/c’s maintained with
HDFC Bank and Central Bank of India, proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s 148
dated 31.03.2022 (as per procedure).
During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has explained the
cash deposits in bank to have been sourced out of some business transaction, relating
to purchase and sales. It was further submitted that the total deposit in HDFC Bank A/c
No. xxxxxx0152 was Rs. 40.76 lacs and the deposits with Central Bank of India A/c
No. xxxxx0203 was only 9 lacs (which is wrongly stated by the AO at Rs. 15,13,000/-).
Ultimately, the assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs. 55.82 lacs u/s
144/144 of the Act.
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been
dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by
observing as follows:
“Hence, I set aside the assessment made under section 147r.w.s144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment within the time limit set by the Finance Act, 2024. For Statistical purposes, the appeal has been Allowed.”
Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the
memorandum of appeal and the main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A)
5 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 has not adjudicated on the legal grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal in
Form No. 35.
In course of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted
that the total cash deposits in both the bank accounts together totals to Rs. 49.76 lacs which is below the stipulated amount of Rs. 50 lacs and as such the reopening of the assessment beyond the three-year period is barred by limitation and the assessment
deserves to be quashed.
He further submitted that the AO has wrongly considered the deposits in Central
Bank of India as 15,13,000/- (based on incorrect information received) when actually the total of cash deposits in the said bank is only nine lacs, and in support of his
contention he has furnished the copy of the bank statement. To sum up the matter the ld. AR pointed out that the total deposits in both the banks taken together being 49.76,
is less than the minimum requirement of 50 (fifty lakhs) and as such, the assumption of
jurisdiction u/s 147 beyond a three-year period is barred by limitation, being hit by the
provisions of section 149(2)(b) of the Act 61.
He further submitted that the approval itself granted by the PCIT u/s 151 on the basis of incorrect fact by assuming the cash deposit to be 55.89 lacs is factually
incorrect and in support of his contention he relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
6 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 in the case of Tele Performance Global Service (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 298 Taxman
769 (Bom)(HC).
Before concluding, he further raised the legal issue pertaining to validity of the
notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022
which is not legally valid in terms of the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated
29.03.2022 issued in terms of section 151 of the Act which mandates that such notice
is to be issued only in a faceless manner and in support of his contention he relied on
the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu v.
UOI & Ors dated 19.07.2024 in CWP-15745-2024.
As such, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. first appellate authority was not legally
justified in refusing to adjudicate the legal grounds contained in Form No. 35, by
simply setting aside the matter before the AO for fresh assessment, in consequence to
which the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) for proceeding with the set-aside
assessment, ignoring the legal issues raised before appellate authorities.
As such he prays for adequate relief.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT (A) and submitted that since the case
is set aside to the AO for fresh assessment, all legal issues may be taken up at the
assessment stage, as such he prayed for upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).
7 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 17. We have heard the rival submissions and considered materials on record and we
are of the view that the appellate authority needs to adjudicate on all the grounds
contained in the memorandum of appeal specially the legal issues which strikes at the
very root of jurisdiction.
As such we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the files of the Ld.
CIT(A) for adjudication on the legal grounds taken by the assessee in form 35, after
allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the
assessee is also directed to file all his submission and fully cooperate in appeal
proceedings.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court as on 22.01.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
