Pradeep Kumar vs ACIT, Circle-3(1)

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeals Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated08.10.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 17.12.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The appellant is contesting the action of the Revenue authorities both on legal ground as well as merits of the case. As the legal ground strikes at the very root, we have decided to consider the legal grounds first.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on record. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 17.12.2024. In the instant case, the appellant had not filed any Return of Income and the AO had concluded assessment, assessing income of the assessee at Rs.60,90,501/- and raising a demand of Rs.2,59,71,072/-. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal invoking provisions of section 249(4) of the Act holding that the appeal per se was non-maintainable.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the action of the revenue authorities is hit on account of jurisdictional insufficiency. It has been submitted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.03.2024 as per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that since notice/s 148 was issued after three year, the legal stipulation of asset exceeding of Rs.50 lakhs ought to have been fulfilled. It has been submitted that the assessee is held guilty of investing Rs.60,90,501/- in fixed deposits and hence justification for invocation of proceedings vide notice u/s 148 dated 19.03.2024 as per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. Counsel has placed before us details to indicate that it had invested Rs.30 lakhs in Allahabad Bank on 29.09.2016 vide FD No.50356443286 for 90 days. Thereafter, this FD which was matured on 30.12.2016 was reinvested on even date vide another FD No.50368289514. In support of his contentions, bank statements have been placed in the paper book at pages 68 and 69. Upon perusal thereof, we have noted the veracity of assessee’s submission. The value of asset was less than Rs.50 lakhs and hence cannot form part of provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. We are of the considered view therefore that there was no case of Revenue to have issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee dated 19.03.2024. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had not responded before the ld. AO and hence the matter be remitted to him.

We have noted that the assessee has demonstrated through clear evidences that notice u/s 148 to the assessee dated 19.03.2024 was not correct in its case. As its clear case of jurisdictional efficiency, the assessment order dated 17.12.2024 would not survive and is therefore quashed and set-aside. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant qua legal grounds on the issue of jurisdictional insufficiency are allowed.

As the assessee has succeeded in terms of legal grounds raised by it, the grounds of appeal raised qua merits of the addition have become academic in nature and hence dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.