Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

ITAT Rejects Jurisdiction, Limitation and Procedural Challenges Raised by Ex-Flipkart COO Against Final Assessment Order for AY 2020-21 [Read Order]

The Bench took up all twelve grounds raised in the appeal extensively before reaching a conclusion

Mansi Yadav
ITAT Rejects Jurisdiction, Limitation and Procedural Challenges Raised by Ex-Flipkart COO Against Final Assessment Order for AY 2020-21 [Read Order]
X

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Bangalore heard an appeal pertaining to AY 2020-21, wherein multiple procedural and jurisdictional challenges were raised by Binny Bansal. The appeal was against the final assessment order passed by the DCIT, Bangalore under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the directions of...


The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Bangalore heard an appeal pertaining to AY 2020-21, wherein multiple procedural and jurisdictional challenges were raised by Binny Bansal.

The appeal was against the final assessment order passed by the DCIT, Bangalore under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel.

One of the grounds questioned the jurisdiction of the National Faceless Assessment Centre to issue notice under Section 143(2), as the assessee’s case was under International Tax charge.

A major procedural challenge was raised on the applicability of Section 144C of the Act. The assessee argued that once the Assessing Officer treated him as a resident of India, he could not be regarded as an “eligible assessee.” Therefore, the draft assessment order itself was without jurisdiction. It was contended that the final assessment order was consequently barred by limitation.

The assessee also raised grounds relating to errors in computation of assessed income, incorrect adjustment of refunds, levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act.

The Revenue argued that the draft assessment order was correctly issued since the assessee had himself declared non-resident status in the return of income and the procedure under Section 144C had to be followed at the initial stage.

Accepting the Revenue’s submissions, the Tribunal rejected the limitation and jurisdictional challenges and held that the assessment proceedings were valid. With regard to refund of ₹58,180,852, the AO was directed to process the refund within 60 days of the date of order.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

The order was pronounced on January 9, 2026, by a bench comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member).

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Binny Bansal vs Deputy Commissioner , 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 186 , IT(IT)A No.571/Bang/2023 , 09 January 2026 , Percy Pardiwala , Arvind Kamath
Binny Bansal vs Deputy Commissioner
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 186Case Number :  IT(IT)A No.571/Bang/2023Date of Judgement :  09 January 2026Coram :  PRASHANT MAHARISHI VICE PRESIDENT , SHRI KESHAV DUBEY JUDICIAL MEMBERCounsel of Appellant :  Percy PardiwalaCounsel Of Respondent :  Arvind Kamath
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019