Amplex Projects Private Limited Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Guwahati)
Assessment Completed After Search on Abated Proceedings Held Non-Est: ITAT Guwahati Quashes 143(3) Order for AY 2013-14
The Guwahati Bench of the ITAT held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 15.03.2016 for AY 2013-14 was without jurisdiction and non-est, as the assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search (20.01.2016) and hence stood abated by virtue of the second proviso to section 153A. The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds, holding that such jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage. It noted that once search is initiated, the AO loses jurisdiction to complete regular assessment for abated years, and assessment can only be made u/s 153A. Relying on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) and Himatsingka Seide Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata), the Tribunal held that the 143(3) order was non-est and consequently, all subsequent appellate proceedings based on that order were also invalid. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was allowed and the impugned assessment was quashed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT GUWAHATI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.08.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079874749(1) on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in having 1. dismissed the appeal by assuming that the relevant assessment year 2013-14 was not addressed by the Hon’ble Settlement Commission in its order u/s.245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the relevant assessment year is already under appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessment of the relevant assessment year, pending on the date of search, had already abated.
3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not having considered that the assessment completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2016 for the relevant AY 2013-14, pursuant to the date of search i.e. 20/01/2016, is bad in law.
4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly assumed that the order of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 26/12/2017 states that the share capital addition of Rs.2,93,00,000/- for the AY 2013-14 was not addressed by the Commission since the same year was already under appeal before the CIT(A), without appreciating that the relevant assessment year was already admitted vide order u/s.245D(2C) of the Act dated 20/01/2017 as it was held therein that the relevant assessment year pending on the date of initiation of search had already abated.
5. That, therefore, as the order of Ld. C.LT.(A) suffers from Ge illegality and is devoid of any merit, the same should be quashed and your appellant be given such relief(s) as prayed for.
6. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, Ge substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.”
2. During the course of hearing, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal as under:
1. That the impugned assessment made by the AO pursuant to return which was filed before the date of search which abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act the AO erred in completing the assessment on the abated return and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the order and upholding the same.
2. That the impugned order passed ws.143(3) of the Act being bereft of jurisdiction cannot survive the test of law and should accordingly he quashed.”
3. The Ld. DR objected for raising additional grounds of appeal. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee justifying the reasons for raising additional grounds and submitted that it is a legal in nature which can be raised any point of time and relying on the judgment of National Thermal Power Corporation Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383. Considering the submission on both the sides, we also gone through the additional grounds raised by the assessee and we find that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal in nature which can be raised at any point of time as held by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. cited supra in which it has been held that-
“the view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of appeal before the CIT(A) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings such a question should be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.”
4. On going through the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we accept the additional grounds raised by the assessee and adjudicating as under:
