Ashok Kumar Jain Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Variance Between 148A(b) & 148A(d) Proves Fatal – Reopening Built on One Allegation, Order on Another- Show Cause Speaks of Bogus ITC, Order Speaks of Bogus Purchases – Jurisdictional Mismatch Sinks Reassessment– ITAT Delhi Quashes 148A & 263
The appeal was filed against the revisional order u/s 263 dated 29.03.2025 whereby PCIT revised assessment order dated 16.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B. PCIT held that AO had mechanically accepted alleged bogus purchases from M/s RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd amounting to Rs.22,19,108/- without making inquiries regarding physical movement of goods, thereby rendering the order erroneous & prejudicial to Revenue.
Before Tribunal, Assessee not only challenged the 263 order but also questioned the very validity of reopening u/s 147 by raising the plea that the assessment order was non-est due to wrongful assumption of jurisdiction, non-furnishing of relied material & a glaring inconsistency between reasons in notice u/s 148A(b) & findings in the order u/s 148A(d). Tribunal examined whether such a challenge is permissible in proceedings arising out of s.263. Relying extensively on its own coordinate bench rulings in Rahul Rastogi, Shobhit Goel (HUF), Westlife Development Ltd., Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Jignesh Lilachand Shah & several Supreme Court principles on jurisdictional nullity, Tribunal held that an Assessee is entitled to demonstrate that the very assessment order forming the foundation of 263 proceedings is void & non-est.
