Javeed Khan Ahemad Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
₹3.32 Cr 69A Addition Not Decided on Merits— Legal Grounds Not Examined- Matter Restored for Fresh Hearing
Assessee did not file ROI for AY 2017-18. Based on cash deposits of ₹3,10,81,973 & other deposits of ₹21,79,000, AO issued notices u/s 148A(d) & 148. Assessee did not respond to 148A proceedings or to 142(1). AO completed best-judgment assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B, adding ₹3,32,60,973 u/s 69A as unexplained money.
Before CIT(A)/NFAC, assessee partly complied & challenged both jurisdiction of reopening & addition u/s 69A. CIT(A), relying on principles of natural justice, held that AO passed the order ex-parte, & therefore set aside the assessment & remanded the matter to AO for fresh decision, directing proper opportunity.
Assessee appealed to ITAT raising pure legal grounds, including:
- Invalid initiation of reassessment;
- Non-compliance with s.148–151 requirements;
- Jurisdictional objection citing Ashish Agarwal (SC);
- Notice u/s 148 being contrary to CBDT Circular 19/2019.
ITAT noted that many of these legal grounds were raised for the first time before Tribunal & were not adjudicated by CIT(A).
Relying on Delhi HC in Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. PCIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 92 (extract at page 5), Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate grounds that do not arise out of the CIT(A)’s order. When legal issues remain unexamined by CIT(A), the correct course is to restore the matter back.
