AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.09.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 18.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2019-20.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after notification issued for faceless assessment.
2.The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and or deleted or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.
Before us, the ld. Sr. DR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ITO vs. Tej Pratap Singh & Others in case Diary Nos. 2196/2026 vide order dt. 10.04.2026 has set aside the issue of notice issued u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Faceless assessing officer (FAO) for reconsideration to the respective Hon’ble high courts and in the instant case, ld. CIT(A) has quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on this ground only. Ld. SR. DR thus prayed that since the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the other grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on the merits of the additions, therefore, it is requested that the matter be remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. AR for the assessee has raised no objections to the prayer made by the ld. Sr. DR.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on records. in the instant case, ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing the reassessment order by holding the notice issued by the JAO as invalid. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Tej Pratp Singh & Others (supra) has remand this issue to the Hon’ble high court for reconsideration. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble court are as under:
20.In all fairness, we may add that several other contentions have also been raised by both sides, which we do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the present batch, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the rival submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at this juncture.
21.It appears to us that the assessees would be entitled to challenge the amending provisions as elaborated upon heretofore, for which it would only be appropriate to relegate them to the jurisdictional High Courts. All contentions raised before us, as well as any other grounds available to them to question the impugned notices, may be urged before the High Courts instead.
22.Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOs lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.
As could be seen the Hon’ble Apex court has set aside the orders of Hon’ble High Court and remitted to the respective high courts for fresh consideration in the light of the amendment made in the statute. In the instant case, while allowing the ground of appeal of the assessee on the issue of validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the JAO, the reliance is placed on the judgement of the hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT (Int Taxn), in WP No. 23573/2024, Telangana HC)’, of the hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technology Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bombay)’; of the hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-15745-2024 in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs Union of India and others and of hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati) which all the judgements have been set aside the Hon’ble Apex court, therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of validity of notice issued u/s 148 is hereby set aside. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions made, therefore, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The solitary ground of the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.