TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the assessment order as the was never served upon appellant within the period prescribed u/s. 153(1) of the Act and in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/s. 282 of IT Act and rules framed thereunder. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in making/upholding the addition of Rs. 83,50,900/- u/s. 69A rws 115BBE allegedly treating the above credits in bank account as unexplained money ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in upholding the assessment order as the same has been undertaken 3 in the status of AOP u/s. 2(31)(v) whereas the appellant is a partnership firm assessable as firm in view of sec. 2(31)(iv) of IT Act. Therefore, such assessment order has been passed without the procedure for changing the status of appellant. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify/ amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority." 3. The facts in brief as culled out from the proceedings that the appellant is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(b) of the Act was issued on 26.12.2019 asking to explain the cash deposit and credit deposit of Rs. 83,50,900/- and as to why the same be not treated as unexplained income u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act. The AO observed that in respect of cash deposit and credit deposit, no valid explanation has been offered by the assessee. Hence, the addition of Rs. 72,82,000/- including 67,25,000/- during the demonetization period was added as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE penalty proceeding u/s. 271AAC were initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has restored the file to the Ld. AO and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by observing para no. 5 & 6 reproduced as under: "5. OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND DECISIONS: It appears from the records that the appellant failed to comply with the notices issued by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also observed that the return of income u/s. 139 of the Act was not filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act were issued but no response was made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Moreover, it is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e following cases as under: 1. "Nitin Jain vs ACIT in ITA No. 1775/Del/2024 2. Hersh Washesher Chadha, Vs. ACIT. Circle (International Taxation) in ITA No.123/Del/2021 dated 13.04.2023 and Delhi High Court order in 471 ITR 764. 3. Deepak Sharma vs ACIT ITA No.2886/Del/2022 dated 26.03.2025 4. Ganna Vikas Parishad vs JCIT ITA No.6481/Del/2014 dated 31.05.2023 5. JCIT Vs. M/s N.S. Committee ITA 20/Del/2012 6. Kanchi Heritage vs ACIT ITA No.1591/Pun/2017 dated 16.10.2020 7. M/s D N Builders vs ACIT ITA No.220/RPR/2018 dated 02.02.2023" 7. During the argument, it was further submitted that the assessment order was served on the incomplete e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] secondly, no SMS alert for another mode of communication other than ITBA portal was used for sending the notice/ communication of the assessment order to the assessee. The ld. AR for the assessee has relied upon the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Other vs. ITO, Ward 61(1) & Ors. reported as 2022 (9) TMI 1384-Delhi High Court and it is submitted that in view of the finding of Hon'ble High Court, the assessment order is barred by limitation as the notice were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee duly complied with the first notice dated 09.09.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, which is evident from the entries recorded in the order sheet (copy attached as "Annexure D"). The notice dated 09.09.2019 and the show cause notice dated 26.12.2019 were uploaded on the e-filing portal, where the same would have been visible to the assessee. However, the assessee remained unresponsive thereafter and did not file any further replies to the subsequent notices issued during the course of proceedings. This conduct clearly indicates that the assessee was aware of the ongoing assessment proceedings but chose not to participate further. In view of the above submission made by the AO and in the present circumstances of the case, where the assessment has been set aside by Ld. CIT (A) to the file of AO, it is humbly prayed that the claim of the Appellant (assessee) may not be entertained and the matter may please be decided accordingly. Yours faithfully (Nitin Kumar Jaiman) Sr. DR, A Bench ITAT, New Delhi 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that it is clear from the response of the Revenue that the notice and the assessment order has not bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after 01st April, 2021, the Notices will be construed as issued under Section 148(b) of the Act of 1961 as per judgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra)." 12. We have examined the reply of the Revenue dated 28.01.2026 in pursuance to the direction issued by the Bench wherein it is admitted that the assessment order was uploaded on e-filing portal, however, due to some technical error and system error, the assessment order was showing in the "Notices" section. It is further stated that the assessment order along with computation sheet and demand notice was duly served by assessee through speed post vide tracking ID No. ED591719230IN on 31.12.2019. It is pertinent to mention that no proof of tracking record showing service of the assessment order through speed post has been filed. It is to be noted that in the written argument submitted on previous date by the Ld. Sr. DR which are marked as Annexure 1, it is categorically stated that "on perusal of the database available on the e- filing portal, it is found that the computation of income and the demand notice have been served through e-filing portal and the assessment order could not be served through e-filing due to some technical/syst....