आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:373)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:303)र, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1222/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330) /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of No.3726, No.41, 6^th Avenue, Vs. Income Tax, Q Block, Anna Nagar, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai – 600 040. Chennai.

[PAN: AABCK4258L]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T.V.Muthuabhirami, Advocate (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 17.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following legal grounds of appeal:

1. For that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play.

2. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.

3. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the assessment order could not have been passed in the name of the appellant at all in first place, since the appellant is liquidated by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal.

3. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed paper books and through submissions raising admission of additional ground. According to ld. counsel for the assessee, the additional ground was to the very root of the matter as it questions the very jurisdiction of the Ld. assessing officer to make the assessment on a non-existent person. It further stated that it challenges the jurisdiction of the Ld. assessing officer in making the assessment on erstwhile Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd. which had amalgamated with ‘Dvara Kshetriya Gramin Financial Services Pvt. Ltd w.e.f. forced 09.07.2020. It was further mentioned that this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the Ld. assessing officer (Page 5 of the assessment order) yet the assessment order has been passed on 30.03.2023 on the assessee company which is nonexistent. She referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC Ltd to support his contention. The Ld. departmental representative vehemently objected to the additional ground of appeal stating that this ground of appeal has not been raised in the original appeal memo filed by the assessee and therefore now there is no reason that this ground of appeal should be admitted. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The additional ground raised by the assessee refers to the jurisdictional issue, no further facts are required to be examined therefore in the interest of Justice, and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC Ltd we admit the additional ground of appeal. As the additional ground of appeal goes to the root of the appeal we first state the facts relevant to thereto and then decide this ground of appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case:

The assessee is a company and had filed its return of income for A.Y 2017-18. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, assessed income of Rs.31,89,940/-. Later, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (‘PCIT’ in short), has passed order u/s 263 of the Act, and cancelled the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO by observing it as erroneous. Further, the PCIT, has given directions to pass a fre