MCG MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,ZAKIR NAGAR, SOUTH EAST DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), DELHI

ITA 1255/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves MCG Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention revolves around the validity of the notice issued under section 148, which the assessee argued was invalid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not address these jurisdictional issues and instead remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have resolved the jurisdictional issues before proceeding with the assessment on merits and thus restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on these grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717822 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC), Communist Party of India (Marxist) vs. Income Tax Department in WP(C) 9031/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S PRANAV YADAV
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Period of limitation; Validity of assessment
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.1255/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) ITA No.1255/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) MCG Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd., 169, Sukhdev Vihar, New Friends Colony, S.O Zakir Nagar, Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant PAN: AAJCM-4917-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), CR Building, Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Amit Goyal, Chartered Accountant & Ankit Garg, Advocate ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 13/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Pranav Yadav, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme of India in the case of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC). He further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1255/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18) vs. Income Tax Department in WP(C) 9031/2023 dated 28.04.2025 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued within the period of limitation under the Act. He prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of assessment orders shows that the same has been passed in ex-parte proceedings. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 12.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee in first appeal inter alia assailed validity of assessment proceedings on the ground of invalid notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The CIT(A) without adjudicating jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee, restored the case back to Assessing Officer (AO) for making fresh assessment. A perusal of impugned order reveals that ground no. 1 to 6 of appeal before the CIT(A) relate to jurisdictional issue challenging validity of reopening. The CIT(A) evaded the issue and has restored the case to AO. When the assessee has raised a specific jurisdictional issue, the CIT(A) being a quasi jurisdictional authority was duty bound to decide the same before adjudicating the ground on merits of the addition. It is only when the AO assumes valid jurisdiction, the gate to make additions/disallowances is open to the AO. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding jurisdictional grounds i.e. ground no. 1 to 6 of appeal [before the CIT(A)] before taking up the ground on merits of the addition. The CIT(A) shall decide the appeal of assessee Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1255/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18) denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 13th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 13/08/2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "