AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-30, New Delhi dated 19.06.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 31.03.2024 passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi for the Asstt. Year 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and was engaged in the business of providing hardware and assistance of security related equipment. Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.3,81,52,197/- and a book profit of Rs.3,70,14,158/- under section 115JB of the Act for A.Y. 2019-20. The return was revised on 26.12.2019 declaring income of Rs.3,81,82,980/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 and reassessment order was framed under section 147/144 of the Act, 1961 on 31.03.2024 assessing the total income at Rs. 4,33,36,680 including special income of Rs.51,50,000 to be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he set aside the appeal invoking powers u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds:
1.“THAT the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 as well as assessment order dated 31.03.2024 are bad in law as well as in terms of the facts of the case.
2.That the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to Section 250 (6) of the Act, since it does not state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons, and instead remits the case to the Ld. AO without adjudicating the legal and jurisdictional grounds raised by the Appellant.
3.That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in invoking the proviso to Section 251 (1) (a) to set aside the assessment for a de novo exercise without first deciding the legal issues, including limitation and jurisdiction, and thereby granted the Ld. AO an unwarranted second innings.
4.That the reassessment is barred by limitation since the order bearing date 31.03.2024 was neither digitally signed nor communicated to the assessee on 31.03.2024, and the same was dispatched by the Department only on 01.04.2024 after 8pm, rendering it non est in law, which the Ld. CIT (A) failed to adjudicate despite a specific ground.
5.That the reassessment is void for want of jurisdiction under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme and section 151A read with CBDT Notification No. 18 of 2022, since initiation and conduct were not through automated allocation and are vitiated by procedural non-compliance; the Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide this pure question of law.
6.That the Ld. AO has erred by treating Rs.50,00,000/- being the repaid loans (alongwith interest) as income escaping assessment, whereas the same was duly declared by the Appellant in Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA-CD and Financial Statements for the relevant assessment year. The Ld. Assessing Officer has further disallowed the interest of Rs.3,699/- as allegedly being payable to non-descript entity. The Ld. AO has made addition of Rs.1,50,000/- as being the alleged commission at 3% of the loan amount, under Section 69C of the Act; and the Ld. CIT (A) failed to adjudicate the merits of the case.
7.That the reliance on illegible and uncorroborated WhatsApp extracts and denial of cross-examination violate principles of natural justice and vitiate the reassessment; further, the Ld. AO proceeded on incorrect foundational facts by recording that no return was filed despite a return having been filed, which the Ld. CIT(A) failed to examine.
8.That the consequential charging under section 115BBE of the Act, levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings are bad in law and cannot survive if the additions do not.
9.That the Appellant craves leave to supplement, add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the assessee objected to the assessment order made under section 147/144 of the Act as being beyond the limitation of time i.e. 31.03.2024. The assessee places its reliance on screenshot of e-filing portal where the assessment proceedings under section 147 for A.Y. 2019-20 is shown to have been closed on 02.04.2024 and the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 [Delhi]. In response, the learned DR submitted a report from the Assessing Officer to contest the objection of the learned AR that the order under section 147 of the Act was passed beyond the limitation period. The Assessing Officer also attached the order sheet generated from ITBA Portal wherein it is recorded that the order under section 147 of the Act was generated by the Central Circle-32, Delhi in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 along with the demand notice on 31.03.2024. This was served upon the assessee through CPC on assessee e-filing account vide intimation dated 02.04.2024.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the order under section 147 passed by the AO is dated 31.03.2024 and was passed manually. The AO has presented evidence, which has gone unrebutted, in the form of computerized order sheet which shows that the said order, generated u/s 147 in the case of the assessee, by the AO Central Circle 32, Delhi alongwith the Demand notice for AY 2019-20, was uploaded on Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal on 31.03.2024 itself. We are therefore of the view that once the assessment order is uploaded on the ITBA portal, it becomes complete and effective as it goes outside the control of the AO and thereafter the AO has no power to revise or modify the order. We are fortified in our view by the decision of CIT Vs BJN Hotels (2016)382 ITR 110 (Karn) and CIT Vs Kuppumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker) wherein it was held that in order to make the assessment order complete and effective it should be issued so as to be beyond the control of the assessee so that the same is not subject to any change.
The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs ITO (supra) is distinguishable in facts as the hon’ble court was concerned with issuance and service of notice u/s 148 whereas the issue involved in the instant case is ‘making’ of assessment order u/s 147/144 of the Act within the limitation period. In view of the same, we are of the considered view that the reassessment order is passed within the due date and within the limitation period. Ground is dismissed.
The next substantive grievance is with regard to the invocation of power under section 251(1)(a) by the CIT(A) for setting aside the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh adjudication. We find that the assessment order is passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act which is an ex parte order by the Assessing Officer. The legislature has laid down the law under section 251(1)(a) empowering the CIT(A) to set aside the assessment order in cases where the order of assessment is made under section 144, back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. Since, the assessment order is passed under section 144, the CIT(A) was well within his power to invoke the provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. We therefore, find nothing invalid in the action of the CIT(A). Ground No.3 is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5770/Del/2025 is dismissed.