AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 24.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, the assessee is seen to have purchased a property jointly with his mother for a sum of Rs.66 lakhs. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings were reopened with a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act being issued. It is recorded in the Ld. AO’s order that there was no compliance whatsoever to as many as six notices issued by way of providing opportunity. Thereafter, aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where he made detailed written submissions, including on the ground of alleged illegal assumption of jurisdiction. The legal ground of challenge was primarily on account of the fact that the entire investment in the property was Rs.66 lakhs which was equally divided between the assessee and his late mother. It was the claim that once this fact was taken into consideration then the alleged amount escaping assessment would be less than Rs.50 lakhs and thereafter there could be no reopening beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this contention by stating that since the assessee did not file any details and evidences whatsoever before the Ld. AO hence, it was not clear as to how the assessee was determining his share at 50% of the total investment value. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A), on para 2 at page 22 of the impugned order, has also stated that the additions made by the Ld. AO have not been contested at either the assessment stage or even the appellate stage. Needless to say, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: -
1.“The order of CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts.
2.The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the jurisdiction of AO u/s 148 is void ab initio.
3.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in affirming the jurisdiction of the AO u/s 148 ignoring that the action of the AO is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) in as much as the alleged investment attributable to assessee is only 35.31 lakhs.
4.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.66,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act.
5.The CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the relevant documentary evidence submitted by the assessee to prove the factum of joint ownership of the assessee with the mother.
6.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”
This case is a stay granted matter, whereby vide order in SA No.241/Del/2026, dated 24.04.2026 a stay on recovery of demand was granted by the ITAT.
Before us the Ld. AR argued that due to personal problems in the assessee’s family, as set out in detail in the request for stay of demand, the assessee could not pursue his matter before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A) relevant documentary evidence could not be produced. The Ld. AR stated that the main point was that if at all any income had escaped assessment then it should be 50% of Rs.66 lakhs, which would debar the Ld. AO from reopening the case after three years.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and pointed out that in the absence of documents and necessary facts, the authorities below had no option but to take an adverse view against the assessee.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that there has been no significant fact finding at the lower levels and thus, we find ourselves unable to appreciate the issues pertaining to the grounds of appeal before us. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. It is made clear that the legal challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction is left open for consideration by the Ld. AO on the basis of documents and evidences to be filed before him by the assessee.
Since the appeal has been remanded back to the file of Ld. AO, hence, the issue of stay of demand now becomes infructuous. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.