Failure by the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order disposing of an assessee's objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the subsequent assessment order illegal and void.

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 07/05/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2012-13 and raised the following grounds:

“1. That the order of the Authorities below in so far as it is against the assessee is opposed to law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity and all other known principles of law.

2. That the total income and total tax computed is hereby disputed.

3. That the Authorities below erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the appellant as required under law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, hence the order requires to be cancelled.

4. That the notice, initiation and all subsequent proceedings u/s 148 is bad in law, is without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires to be cancelled.

5. The notice u/s 148 and service thereof is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled.

6. The conditions precedent to justify the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act being absent, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled.

7. That the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law, as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment and there is no new or fresh information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment.

8. That the entire reassessment proceedings violates the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 259 ITR 19 for 148 proceedings.

9. The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same set of facts without there being any new evidence or information which is not permitted under law.

10. The reasons / findings of the Authorities below are unsustainable and untenable in law as there is no relationship to the facts emerging from the record.

11. That the Authorities below erred in relying on material/information without furnishing the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order.

1. That the Authorities below erred in relying on uncorroborated statement of persons namely Shri Dhruv Narayan Jha, Shri Jagdish Prasad Purohit, Shri Devesh Upadhyaya and Shri Anuj Agarwal without furnishing the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order.

13. That the Authorities below erred in relying on the following material without furnishing the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order.

a) Findings of Kolkata Investigation Directorate and Mumbai Investigation Directorate

b) SEBI order in the matter of First Financial Services Ltd dt.19.12.2014

c) SIT Report on Black money

14. That the Authorities below erred in not providing complete details relied on before calling for objections from the assessee.

15. That the Authorities below erred in relying on statements without providing opportunity to cross examine.

16. That the Authorities below erred in relying on irrelevant material while ignoring the relevant material.

17. That the Authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.16,51,45,586/- as unaccounted cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.

18. That the Authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd u/s 68 of the IT Act.

19. That the Authorities below erred in resorting to section 68 of the Act.

20. That the Authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd.

21. That the Authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.49,54,368/- as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same.

22. That the Authorities below erred in estimating 3% of sale consideration of shares as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act merely on surmise.

23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any