AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/ 1083858641(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 26.09.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by Ward 60(7) Delhi, for AY: 2015-16.
On hearing both sides we find that the NFAC has allowed the appeal of the assesse by taking recourse to proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act by restoring the issue to Assessing Officer for denovo assessment and the impugned findings in para 6.6 of the order of NFAC are reproduced below:
“6.6In this case also appellant's claim was not fully examined by AO during the course of assessment because the order was passed as Best Judgment manner u/s 144 of the IT Act. The addition was made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. Therefore, keeping the legislature intent in mind, it would meet the ends of justice, if the assessment in appeal is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Needless to say, the appellant shall make the required evidences in support of his claim before the AO for examination of the correctness of claim within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the assessment order is set aside to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order as per proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Appellant was provided one more opportunity to represent his case on merit and by setting aside appellant's all grievances related to jurisdictional issues related to 148A proceedings are resolved in his favour on the ground of principle of natural justice. Now only substantive issue related to merit of the case is pending and needs to be answered by the appellant. Ld. AO is directed to provide sufficient opportunity to be heard and then pass the order. Hence, all Ground Nos. 1 to 7 raised by the appellant is considered and partly allowed for statistical purpose without going into the merit of the case.”
We find that assesse had raised jurisdictional issue questioning the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act and the same have not been decided by the NFAC and to the prejudice of assessee the said grounds so raised in that regard are also set aside to the Assessing Officer by observing that assessee’s grievance relating to jurisdictional issue thereby stand resolved.
We find that assesse has raised jurisdictional ground before this Tribunal again through ground No. 1. We are of the considered view that the jurisdictional ground of assumption of jurisdiction or the reassessment proceeding being barred by limitation are not such legal issue which can be restored to assessing officer itself by recourse to proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and the only purpose of bringing this power in statute for assistance and benefit of assesse where assessment has been completed on best judgment basis, so that assesse is given opportunity to contest on merits of the issue which had resulted out of the best judgment assessment. However, question of law or legal ground raised to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction or to assert that the impugned assessment order is vitiated or void-ab-initio for any legal lacunae. These powers cannot be invoked by the ld. First Appellate Authority.
In the light of aforesaid we allow the appeal of the assesse for statistical purposes and restore the legal issues to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse including opportunity to raise legal ground whatsoever available fresh and pass an order afresh.