IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Manaksia Limited Tax, Circle-4(1)

Turner Morrison Building, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Vs.

6, Lyons Range, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAACH6882J Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &

Ms. Lata Goel, ARs Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR Date of hearing: 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 17.01.2025 for the AY 2010-11.

02. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the ground no.3, which is extracted as under: -

“3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law in sending the reassessment order back to the A.O. without considering that the said reassessment order suffered from technical deficiencies for not having issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and hence the reassessment order set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) was void ab initio for want of valid jurisdiction, as decided in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Bluemoon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC).”

03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on

22.06.2017, declaring total income of ₹ 66,06,603/- as per the normal provision and ₹31,01,78,541/- in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessment was concluded vide order dated 20.03.2014, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2017, copy of which is available at page no.97 of the Paper Book. The assessee complied with the said notice while filing the return of income on 28.04.2017, copy of acknowledgement is available at page no. 98 of the Paper Book. The AO thereafter issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, which was duly served on the assessee and also complied with by the assessee by attending proceeding before the ld. AO through authorized representative. The assessee requested the ld. AO to supply the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act, which were finally supplied. Thereafter, the assessee again filed a letter dated 28.06.2017, requesting the ld. AO to provide the copy of reasons record, copy of which is available at page no.98 of the Paper Book. On 29.06.2017, the assessee received the assessment order framed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 22.06.2017, making an addition of ₹4,14,45,729/- on account of undisclosed interest of loan from M/s Euro Asian Ventures FZE, an associated enterprise of the assessee. The ld. AO provided the reasons on

04.07.2017 to the assessee after passing the order.

04. The assessee challenged the said assessment before the ld. CIT (A), however, the ld. CIT (A) without considering the submission of the assessee restored the appeal back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication on the ground that the ld. AO passed the ex-parte order without considering the merit.

05. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before us. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment framed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 22.06.2017, is invalid as the AO did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement under law. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 148 of the Act on 28.04.2017, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that in order to assume the jurisdiction thereafter, the ld. AO has to issue the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and only then, the ld. AO could proceed with the assessment proceedings and however the AO framed the assessment sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted tha