AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-24 Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO'), under section 147 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the Id. AO and the consequent reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act are illegal, invalid and Vold-ab-initio.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in issuing notice uis 143(2) of the Act, dated 27.03.2025 which is barred by limitation and issued beyond the prescribed time limit as envisaged under the law.
4.That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without satisfying the pre-conditions for the issuance of such notice mentioned under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, being escaped income amounts to fifty lakh rupees or more represented in the form of asset, expenditure related to an event or transaction or entry in the books of accounts.
5.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice to the ground raised above at point 3, the learned AO grossly erred in law and facts of the case in issuing notice under section 148 beyond three years without satisfying the pre-conditions stated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, disregarding that, if the addition made by the learned AO, amounting to Rs. 18,80,000/-, if at all, qualifies to be escaped income, the same was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
6.On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned AO has grossly erred in passing the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act without appreciating the fact and law that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are illegal, as the same has been initiated and completed without assumption of valid jurisdiction.
7.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred, both on facts and in law, in initiating the proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that assessment proceedings and consequent reassessment u/s 147 of the Act are without complying with the statutory conditions and the procedure prescribed under the law are bad and liable to be quashed.
8.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order under section 147 is illegal and void-ab-initio as the same has been passed without obtaining valid statutory approval from the specified authority as provided under the Act.
9.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated 31.03.2025 passed under section 147 of the Act, completing the assessment at a total income of Rs.18,80,000/- as against returned loss of Rs.2,36,20,929/- is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void-ab-initio.
10.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,80,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee company by invoking the provisions mentioned under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
11.That while confirming the above addition of Rs. 18,80,000/- under Section 69A, the Id. CIT(A) totally ignored the submission of the assessee filed along with documentary evidences and therefore, the said addition is totally unjustified and unlawful.
12.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is against principles of natural justice in so far as the learned Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon by the learned Assessing Officer.
13.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the additions solely on his own suspicion, surmises, and conjectures devoid of any adverse material.
14.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in charging interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
15.The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
During proceedings none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, from the grounds of appeal it is seen that the assessee has taken grounds that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided issues on merits. The additions were solely on the basis of suspicion surmises and conjectures, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice.
Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the authorities below. We have considered the arguments of the Ld. DR and we find that keeping in view the natural justice the assessee deserves one more opportunity. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give findings and speaking order on all issues raised by the assessee after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the revenue in filing all the details and documents in time to get the case adjudicated at the earliest. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.