Panaqua Tradecom P Ltd.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported decision treats the new proviso to section 251(1)(a) as a discretionary remand power rather than an automatic rule whenever assessment was made under section 144. It also reports that reassessment cannot survive where the taxpayer's response showed the alleged escaped amount was already included in returned income.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 144; 147; 148A(b); 251(1)(a)
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction: The reported decision treats the new proviso to section 251(1)(a) as a discretionary remand power rather than an automatic rule whenever assessment was made under section 144. It also reports that reassessment cannot survive where the taxpayer's response showed the alleged escaped amount was already included in returned income.
Material facts and background
ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10482652by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)]u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act),for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has remanded the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act by invoking the powers under the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act, directing the assessing officer for making fresh assessment order.
grounds under this second appeal. Ld AR submits that one of the grounds raised by the assessee is that the ld CIT(A)/ NFAC erred in merely setting aside the assessment without adjudicating the legal grounds, despite the reassessment itself being void ab initio. Assessee has also raised other legal grounds in respect of the assessment having been done against a non existing entity and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid being contrary to section 148,148A and 151 etc. 3.
remanded/ set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act, by invoking the powers vested in him vide, proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.10.2024 by Finance Act, 2024.This proviso provides that where such appeal is against the order of assessment made u/s. 144, he may set aside the assessment and render the case back to the assessing officer for making a fresh assessment. It is important to note that the legislature has used the word “may” which shows that the ld CIT(A) is not mandated to always set aside the assessment, 2|Page
having been framed u/s. 144 of the Act.Where the assessee is able to show that the assessing officer has incorrectly or invalidly assumed the jurisdiction for initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, the power of remand/ set aside in such a case may not be exercised and the first appellate authority, should decide the issue at its own.Mere framing of assessment u/s. 144 of the Act will not automatically give the ld CIT(A) a blanket discretion to always set aside the assessment for being redone in a routine manner. 5.
Appellant / assessee submissions
grounds under this second appeal. Ld AR submits that one of the grounds raised by the assessee is that the ld CIT(A)/ NFAC erred in merely setting aside the assessment without adjudicating the legal grounds, despite the reassessment itself being void ab initio. Assessee has also raised other legal grounds in respect of the assessment having been done against a non existing entity and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid being contrary to section 148,148A and 151 etc. 3.
Revenue / respondent submissions
Ld Sr DR has supported the impugned order, being in accordance
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
Copy of Bank Statement highlighting the above transaction is attached as Annexure-4. Balance of Rs.2,56,78,44,353/- (3,11,78,34,353-54,99,90,000) is reflected as closing balance in balance confirmation which is attached as Annexure5. 3. Summary of sales register showing total sales of Rs.3,11,78,34,353/- with Astrogems&JewelleryPvt.Ltd. which is matching with balance confirmation is attached as Annexure - 6. 4. Detail sales register including taxable sales of Rs.6,64,81,91,241/- which is matching with financials is attached as Annexure -7. 5. Financials of PanaquaTradecom Private Limited is attached as Annexure-8. 6. In light of the facts, supporting documents referred above, it is clear that the transaction is of Rs.54,99,90,000/-which represents receipt from Astrogems&JewelieryPvt.Ltd. has been offered as income and not escaped from assessment. Therefore, it is not proper to hold that Rs.54,99,90,000/-income has escaped assessment.”
Operative decision and relief
ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10482652by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)]u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act),for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has remanded the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act by invoking the powers under the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act, directing the assessing officer for making fresh assessment order.
remanded/ set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act, by invoking the powers vested in him vide, proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.10.2024 by Finance Act, 2024.This proviso provides that where such appeal is against the order of assessment made u/s. 144, he may set aside the assessment and render the case back to the assessing officer for making a fresh assessment. It is important to note that the legislature has used the word “may” which shows that the ld CIT(A) is not mandated to always set aside the assessment, 2|Page
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- Hold Metadata Incomplete
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 144, 147, 148A(b), 251(1)(a).
- Your matter is at a comparable reassessment stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Agra considered: ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2020-21 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Panaqua Tradecom P Ltd.?
The reported decision treats the new proviso to section 251(1)(a) as a discretionary remand power rather than an automatic rule whenever assessment was made under section 144. It also reports that reassessment cannot survive where the taxpayer's response showed the alleged escaped amount was already included in returned income.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10482652by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)]u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act),for the A.Y.
What did the ITAT Agra ultimately decide?
ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025passed in Appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10482652by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC(Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)]u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act),for the A.Y.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 144, 147, 148A(b), 251(1)(a). The relevant statutory version for AY 2020-21 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
Hold Metadata Incomplete The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 144 — 144 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of cit(a) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 147 — 147 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of cit(a) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 148A(b) — 148A(b) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of cit(a) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 251(1)(a) — 251(1)(a) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of cit(a) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 144, 147, 148A(b), 251(1)(a) and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on CIT(A) remand power for section 144 assessment; invalid reassessment jurisdiction. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 5 |
| SHA-256 | 3c337fbd3a78e8f073cca0a0a0dcf9b566a1e3cbf5a1cd3f7d567c463ff9f9a7 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |