TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before us: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC erred in: 1. Passing an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO), which is without jurisdiction and hence unsustainable in law. 3. Not appreciating that the CIT(A) does not possess the power to set aside or remand the assessment proceedings back to the AO, thereby exceeding the jurisdiction conferred under Section 250 of the Act. Ground relating to order passed by the AO On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in: 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AO erred in issuing order without a Document Identification Number ("DIN"), as required in accordance with CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated August 14, 2019 and hence bad in law and ought to be quashed. 5. Initiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the time-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 6. Not appreciating that the Appellant was not in receipt of any of the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that were issued by the AO, therefore, the latter was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 16.12.2019, after disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of referral fees paid to doctors of Rs. 4.17 crores (supra) determined its income at Rs. 16,91,181/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the assessee company despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities, had either not participated in the proceedings or had furnished part replies/ sought adjournments, therefore, the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the fact that the assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, set aside the assessment to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. 7. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Mrs. Suvibha Nolkha, Ld.AR (for the assessee company), at the threshold of the hearing, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had grossly erred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a "change of opinion" i.e., on the same set of facts as were available before his predecessor in the course of original assessment proceedings, therefore, for the said reason also, the AO had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and initiated the impugned reassessment proceedings. The Ld.AR to fortify her aforesaid contention had pressed into service, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 taxman 312(SC). The Ld.AR based on her aforesaid contentions vehemently submitted that as the AO had grossly erred in the law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction and reopening a concluded assessment of the assessee company, therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) was obligated to have quashed the impugned reassessment order passed by him u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 16.12.2019. 9. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short "the Ld. DR") relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by him that as the assessee company had neither participated in the assessment proceedings nor prosecuted the matter before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the latter taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O. had fram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment." (emphasis supplied by us) 14. We are of the firm conviction that though the CIT(A) pursuant to the aforesaid amendment in Section 251 of the Act, now stands vested with the jurisdiction to set-aside and refer back a best judgment assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act to the file of the AO for framing a fresh assessment, but the same cannot justify the refraining on his part from adjudicating the legal issues based on which the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment or reassessment has been assailed before him. Rather, we find that as per Section 251(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) in disposing of an appeal is vested with the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. We, thus, are of the firm conviction that in case an assessee appellant, based on the facts available on record, has assailed before the CIT(A) the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment or reassessment, then, if the said claim is found to be in order, the CIT(A) in the exercise of the powers vested with him under sub-section (1) of Section 251....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the facts pertaining to the challenge thrown by the assessee company, qua the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for initiation of the reassessment proceedings, on the ground that the same was beyond the prescribed time limit as contemplated under the "1st Proviso" to section 147 of the Act, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the same instead of adopting an evasive approach in the guise of exercise of the extended jurisdiction vested with him vide the "Proviso" to section 251(1)(a) of the Act as made available on the statute by the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024. We find substance in the Ld. AR's contention that in case the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the A.O for framing the assessment is not addressed by the CIT(A), but, in the garb of the powers vested with him as per the "Proviso" to Section 251(1) of the Act the matter is referred back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, then, it would afford a second inning to the A.O who would simply give effect to the directions of the CIT(A) and reframe the re-assessment order despite lack of valid assumption of jurisdiction which was the very foundation for initiat....