TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order to the assessing officer for fresh assessment by applying the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section 251(1)(a) is not applicable to the appellant as original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 The section 251(1)(a) is applicable only in cases where assessment order is passed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. The set aside by the CIT(A) is totally bad in law 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the ground that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O. u/s 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the ground that the notice issued by the Ld. A.O u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 merely in change of opinion as assessment has already been completed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the ground that the notice issued by the Ld. A.O. u/s 148 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant from same 4 parties amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 while passing the assessment order dated 31/03/2015 of AY 2009-10. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had made addition in respect of share capital & share premium received by the appellant during the year under consideration from 2 parties amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 without considering the facts and documents submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has ignored the fact that the appellant has not received any amount from M/s. Virtual Tours India Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 20,00,000/- during the year. The Ld. AO has made the addition in respect of opening balance of share capital/premium of Rs. 20,00,000/- received from M/s. Virtual Tours India Pvt. Ltd and for opening balance, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 19621 is bad in law. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has ignored the fact that the appellant has received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. CIT(A) in restoring the matter back to the file of AO in contravention of the provisions of Section 251 of the Act, therefore we have decided to adjudicate the same through the present consolidated order. 3. Ground No. 1: We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, the orders of the lower authorities, and the judicial precedents cited before us. From the records, it is evident that in the present case the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the ground that the assessee was found to be a beneficiary of bogus concerns. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"], after noticing certain discrepancies in the assessment order, set aside the same and restored/remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 4. In this regard, we have carefully examined the scope and ambit of powers conferred upon the CIT(A) under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. We found that prior to 01.10.2024, the powers of the CIT(A) were restricted only to confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had obtained accommodation entries from such concerns. It was further alleged that the assessee had received share capital and share premium from certain entities floated by Shri Ashish Chokhani, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the assessment order. However, on careful examination of the material on record, we find that in the impugned reassessment proceedings no income had, in fact, escaped assessment. As it was observed that identical additions in respect of share capital/share premium received from the very same entities had already been made in Assessment Year 2009-10. This factual position was specifically brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the assessee by way of objections dated 03.11.2015, copies of which are placed at Pages 76 to 83 of the Paper Book. Notably, neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) had disputed this factual position. Even in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, no challenge has been raised on this aspect. 10. We also noticed that the assessment for AY 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015, i.e., prior in time to the impugned reassessment order....