TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "The order of the DRP U/s.144C(5) is erroneous in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and against the principles of equity, natural justice. 2. The DRP ignored to adjudicate Ground No. 2 raised before it, wherein the appellant specifically challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The order passed by the AO, i.e., ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad, without having no jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 6(1) read with Section 124(1)(b) of the Act, since the return was filed under the status of "Resident," along with passport details evidencing residential status. Therefore, the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the DRP in ground no.2.1. However, the learned DRP has not adjudicated this issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has referred to the return of income filed by the assessee at page nos.1 and 2 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has declared his residential status as 'resident' in the return of income which was taken up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer-(Int. Taxn.)-1, Hyderabad issued show cause notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act and passed the draft assessment order dated 29.03.2025, against which, the assessee filed objections before the DRP including the objection against the jurisdiction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Officer-(Int. Taxn.)-1, Hyderabad is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income u/sec.139 of the Act. Prior to this assessment year the status of the assessee was 'non-resident' and therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148A(b) and then u/sec.148 of the Act. In response to the said notices, the assessee has filed his return of income. The learned DR has thus submitted that as per the provisions of sec.6(1)(c) read with clause (b) of Explanation, the assessee's residential status for the year would be "non-resident". 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as the return itself is filed under the status of resident and also enclosed details of Passport and NRE account in proof of the same as held in CIT v B.K Dhote [1967] 66 ITR 457 (SC) and therefore the very order passed is legally invalid and ab-intio-void. 2.2 The Learned AO erred in law in proposing addition of Rs. 27,10,916 as income from capital gains by disallowing the cost of construction without considering the same which was incurred to the assessee as the developer couldn't comply with the terms of development agreement and left the project as such the assessee incurred cost to bring the flats to saleable condition and completion certificate has not been obtained has sold the property in semifinished condition and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....note that once the assessee has declared his status as 'resident' in the return of income filed in response to notice u/sec.148, the Assessing Officer before proceeding further to scrutinise the return of income filed by the assessee ought to have decided the residential status of the assessee. Further, even in case when the assessee has not raised this issue before the Assessing Officer prior to the Draft Assessment Order, once the assessee has raised this issue before the DRP, then, the DRP as well as the Assessing Officer before passing the Final Assessment Order were required to adjudicate this issue. Since the residential status of the assessee is required to be verified and examined as per the provisions of sec.6 of the Act and the ac....