Vanita Thakran vs ITO, Ward-4(5)

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.08.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No.: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079959913(1) arising out of the order dated 24.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon for AY: 2012-13.

On hearing both sides we find that the issue involved is the addition made on account of alleged cash deposits in the bank account which are unexplained. The assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue to the files of the assessing officer taking recourse to proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act which empowers CIT(A) to set aside assessments completed u/ 144 to the files of assessing officer for making fresh assessment.

We find that assessee has raised a ground before us that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. We find from the paper book that assessee has raised this issue before ld. First Appellate Authority on the basis of screen shots of ITBA portal to establish that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. We find that without deciding this legal issue which goes to the root of assumption of valid jurisdiction, ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue for fresh determination by relying proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and in regard to which we are of the considered view that powers given there are not mandatory and discretion has to be exercised on sound reasoning depicted in the order. Specially when assessee raises legal ground questioning the assumption of jurisdiction itself.

Therefore, we consider it appropriate case to allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and restore the issue to the files of ld. CIT(A), for determination of legal grounds and based upon that ld. CIT(A) can proceed to decide the merits as well.