AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076490652(1) dated 30-Jul-2025 involving proceedings under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee pleads the following grounds of appeal:
1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) affirming the order of Assessing Officer (AO) is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts & in law, in passing the order without giving assessee an adequate and proper opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice.
3(i). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as:
a. There is no valid service of notice under Sec 148 of the Act
b. The reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad and vague
c. There is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer.
d. The reasons are recorded without independent application of mind on the part of the assessing officer.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned AI, both on facts and in law, in making an addition of Rs 40,05,480/-
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) and AO is blatantly against the principle of natural justice and the common prudence of taxation.”
Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee going by para 8.6.4 at page 16 of the lower appellate discussion for the reason that she could not file any response/rejoinder to the Assessing Officer’s remand report. There could hardly be any dispute that possibility of various communications gaps in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is thus deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.