AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.08.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28.03.2023 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.
Grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are reproduced as under:
“1.Whether the impugned order given by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse on both the facts and law of the case.
2.Whether the order given by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse both on facts and law by not considering the office memorandum dated 20th February, 2023 F No. 370153/7/2O23-TPL, which is duly interpreted in right context by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanghi Steel Udyog Private Limited vs Union Of India and Ors. (WPO/ 154912023).
3.Whether the order given by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse both on facts and law in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhiraj Lakhotia vs Union of India &Anr. Vide WPA 1458 of 2024 given on 16.8.2O24.
4.The department has filed SLP on the same issue before Supreme Court of India which is subjudiced.”
During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application for adjournment placed on record. Therefore, this case was taken up for hearing after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record.
This appeal is time-barred by 20 days. In this connection, the assessee has filed a condonation application. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection against the said delay. Considering the explanation filed by the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication.
Brief facts are that the assessee was issued a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, on the basis of information received by the AO regarding cash deposits of Rs. 95,22,000/- made by her in the bank account and also insurance commission of Rs. 21,419/- received during the year. As no response was received, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022, in response to which, return declaring income of Rs. 21,420/- was filed on 05.03.2023. With regard to the cash deposited in the bank account, the assessee explained that an agricultural land was sold by her relative Mrs. Santra Yadav, and the money was deposited in her bank account till the finalization of fresh purchase of property by her relative. The AO rejected the explanation given by the assessee and added Rs. 95,22,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained deposits. Assessment was accordingly finalized at an income of Rs. 95,43,420/- vide order dated 28.03.2023.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee raised additional legal ground challenging the issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as envisaged under the Act read with the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT.
Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the additional ground following the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India in CWP-15745-2024 on the same issue.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the original grounds of appeal and allowed the appeal only on the additional legal ground relating to jurisdiction of FAO and JAO in respect of reassessment proceedings. We further note that vide retrospective amendment made by inserting section 147A, it has been clarified that the Assessing Officer for reassessment proceedings u/s 148 is not restricted to the FAO. The relevant provisions are reproduced as under:
“[Assessing Officer for purposes of secƟons 148 and 148A.
147A.Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.]”
Subsequent to the above retrospective amendment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts in favour of the assessees, for reconsideration, in the light of the above amendments.
Under these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a fresh order on all the grounds of appeal raised before him.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.