TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued and served upon the assessee. Ld assessing officer observed that no return was filed in response thereof. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. Assessee, vide reply dated 21.03.2022, contended before the ld A.O. that the return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act was filed on 25.12.2021. Ld A.O brushed this plea of the assessee aside, stating that the fact was neither mentioned in the assessee's earlier replies nor the return was visible on e-filing. A.O., further observed that there was no point in intimating A.O. at Agra about the filing of return as the notices were issued from the faceless unit. Ld, assessing officer, treating the return as non-est, completed the assessment proceeding and made addition of Rs. 1,19,17,354/- vide assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act. First appeal of the assessee against the assessment order was dismissed by the ld CIT(A). 3. Assessee, originally raised seven grounds and later on, two additional legal grounds vide application dated 16.12.2025, which stand admitted in view of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in NTPC Ltd 229 WR 383. All the grounds raised under appeal are re-produced as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he party from whose premises the documents found have been used against the assessee. (v). That considering the facts of the case the addition of Rs 1,19.17.354/- made by the Assessing Officer made u/s 69C for so called unexplained expenses should have been deleted by Ld CIT(A). 4. That the addition of Rs 1.19.17.354/- made u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE is also wrong, bad in law, without Jurisdiction as on perusal of the Show Cause Notice issued, the reasons recorded (though not provided) perhaps are for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act whereas in the Assessment order the addition has been made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. This is apparently bad in law and not permissible under the Act. Reasons recorded have to be read as it is. No substitution/deletion/addition in the reasons recorded is permissible under the law. On this ground also the addition deserves to be deleted. 5. That the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act is wrong, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act dated 30.03.2021 has been issued by JAO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra whereas the Assessment Order has been passed by NFAC, Delhi. 6. That the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of notice u/s 143(2) when the return of income was filed on 25.12.2021, renders the impugned reassessment order bad in law. Ld AR referred the following case law in support of his arguments: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, (2019) 310 CTR (SC) 8. 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO, (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Del). 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del). 4. PCIT vs. Shri Jay Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All). 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 299 (Del). 7. Anil Agarwal HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 2594/Del/2024, dated 30.07.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 8. Deepak Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, ITA No. 4528/Del/2024, dated 17.10.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 9. PCIT & Anr vs. Ashish Gupta, ITA No 02/2026, Allahabad High Court order dated 09.01.2026. 7. Ld Sr DR for the revenue has submitted that the assessee was required to file the return within 30 days from the date of notice u.s.148, which was issued on 30.03.2021. However, assessee filed belated return on 25.12.2021, which was treated to be non est. In such circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../reassessment finalized/completed without issuance of notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act, when the return of income was filed; render the reassessment order as bad in law. 12. We notice that ld CIT(A), while passing impugned order, has observed that the assessee belatedly filed the return on 25.12.2021, which cannot be treated as valid return as third provisio to section 148, inserted by the Finance Act, 2023, does not alter the fact that even under the preexisting law, the belated filing of the return cannot compel the assessing officer to issue a notice u/s. 143(2). Assessee's ld representative countered this observation by submitting that aforesaid CBDT FAQ's on e-verification, clarified that where return was filed on or before 31.07.2022, the earlier time limit of 120 days for e verification applies. He, thus, submits that the return filed by the assessee was a valid return under the law. Ld AR, further refers CBDT Notification No. 2/2024 dated 31.03.2024 which clarifies that where return is uploaded and e-verified within prescribed time, the date of uploading shall be treated as the date of furnishing the return. Therefore, according to ld AR this clarification applies mutatis ....