आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी एबी ट(cid:9) वकti, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$

BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1348/Chny/2025 (cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anand Arunraj, DCIT, 4C Block V Rani Meyyamai Towers, vs. Corporate Circle -5(1), MRC Nagar, Chennai.

RA Puram, Chennai – 600 028.

[PAN: AJJPA-3474-A]

(अपीलाथ’/Appellant) (()यथ’/Respondent)

अपीलाथ’ क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ()यथ’ क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT सनु वाई क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”) for the Assessment year (A.Y) 2013-14, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 14.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that for the A.Y.2013-14, the assessee had filed his return of income on 31.03.2015 and declared an income of Rs.5,54,040/-. Thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 25.04.2018. In response, the assessee had filed a letter dated 11.06.2018, requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the return filed on 31.03.2015 as the return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act and notice u/s.142(1) of the Act were issued on 14.06.2018 and 08.10.2018 respectively. Subsequently, objections to reopening on both under jurisdiction as well as on merits were also raised by the assessee by filing a letter dated 12.12.2018. Thereafter, assessment order was passed by holding that the assessee had not filed any return in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, nor replies were filed in response to the notices issued to the assessee and thus an addition of Rs.1,09,44,205/- was made u/s.56(2)(vii).

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. Before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee filed a paper book and argued on the jurisdictional issue of non-disposal of objections to the reopening, by a speaking order. It was contended that while the assessee promptly questioned the reopening and raised detailed objections on jurisdiction and merits, the Assessing Officer ought to have disposed of the same. Non-disposal of the objections to the reopening renders the reassessment void. He took us through the pages of the paper book (pages 2-7) wherein these objections are recorded. It was further contended that in the remand report furnished by the assessment unit to the appeal unit, the fact of filing the objections to reopening were also recorded (page 87 of the paper book). It was submitted that it is mandatory that the objections of the assessee on the reopening be disposed by way of a speaking order, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts India Ltd - 259 ITR 19 (SC). Failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order, without first disposing of the objections by way of a separate speaking order, renders the entire exercise of reopening a nullity and as a consequence, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. The Ld.AR relies on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Laggisetty Manohar Karthik vs ITO in ITA No.746/CHNY/2025 decided on 21.08.2025, wherein, the proposition that non-disposal of the objections to reopening by way of valid and separate