Reassessment proceedings cannot be re-initiated or reopened via a second notice once the original reassessment order has reached finality. The judicial relaxation allowing the treatment of older notices as show-cause notices is restricted to pending proceedings and does not mandate the reopening of concluded assessments.

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate Orders both dated 04.09.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, arising from two assessment orders dated 31.03.2022 and 31.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 and 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively, for the assessment year 2016-2017.

ITA.No.1659/Hyd./2025 - A.Y. 2016-2017:

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “The orders of lower authorities are bad in law and liable to be quashed for:

a) non-consideration of material on record and submissions of the appellant

b) want of application of principles of natural justice.

(Tax Effect of above ground 22,94,920)

Without prejudice:

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void-ab inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. (Tax Effect of above ground 22,94,920/-).

3.1. The condition precedent for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act being absent, mandatory procedures under law not having been followed and the requisite approvals from the specified authority not having been taken, reopening of assessment in the appellant's case is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order as passed being also bad in law is required to be quashed.

3.2. The reassessment proceedings are also bad in law for being barred by limitation. The proceedings being void ab initio, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3.3. In any case, the assessing officer having not complied with legal provisions/procedure for reopening/reassessment, the consequential order becomes bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in

a. Not appreciating the facts of the appellant's case and the applicable legal provisions;

b. Not following the law laid down by the Apex court of India;.

c. confirming the impugned reassessment order instead of quashing the same. (Tax Effect of above ground 22.94.920

4. In any case, the assessment order passed in a haste and all proceedings conducted at the fag end of the time barring period without providing the appellant

a. copy of the material/sworn statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer while passing the order,

b. opportunity of rebutting the allegations of the assessing officer and presenting the appellant's case.

is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play which makes the order totally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment and instead confirming the same. (Tax Effect of above ground: 22,94,920)

Without prejudice

5.1. The Assessing officer has erred in taxing a sum of Rs.79,55,760/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition. The addition being wrong on facts of the case and in law applicable is to be deleted. On proper appreciation of facts and applicable legal provisions, the provisions of Sec 69C are not at all applicable to the appellant's case.

5.2. The Assessing Officer has also erred in taxing the additions u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The provisions of Section 115BBE are not at all applicable to the appellant and the levy and calculation of tax U/s. 115BBE is to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the above and not at all addressing the same in the appellate order. (Tax Effect of above ground: 22,94