TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, they are taken together and decided by a common order. First we take appeal filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal for Assessment Year: 2017-18 in ITA No. 3888/Del/2025. ITA No. 3888/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 16.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 15,35,890/-. A search and seizure action was carried out in the case of the Ravinder Oil Group of cases. The assessee being one of the member of said group and search was also carried out in his case on 02.06.2022. Consequent upon the search, the case was centralized with the DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 27.03.2023 after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority which was duly served upon the assessee. The AO observed that assessee has not filed any ITR in response to notice u/s. 148 and based on the details found in the Laptop, containing one ledger account having Title "Sanjeev Property" has concluded that assessee has purchased certain properties for which the cash payments were made of Rs. 1,33,90,000/-. After considering the submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ama and any independent corroboration, the addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 7. The Assessee submitted that these additional grounds of appeal are legal in nature and requires no verification since, they to the root of the matter, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) requested for the admission of the same. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the additional grounds of appeal taken by the assessee and submits in these grounds which requires verification from the AO and thus, requested for the report from the AO. 9. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that in these grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) which is verifiable from the assessment order itself as the AO himself has observed that no notice was issued as no ITR was filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus by respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra), the additional grounds of appeal raised by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice u/s. 148, therefore, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) before completion of the order. He prayed accordingly. 13. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the reassessment order, it is observed that in para 3 of the order, the AO had observed that no return was filed in response to notice u/s. 148 issued on 27.10.2023. However, the assessee had demonstrated before us, that he has filed the return of income alongwith the reply filed on 18.05.2023 through online, clearly stating that the return could not be filed in absence of Utility XML/JSON for filing the return online portal, therefore, a request was made to treat the return filed u/s. 139(1) as the return in response to notice u/s. 148. It is further observed that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order while computing the income in para 6 of the order has taken the income disclosed in ITR at Rs. 15,38,890/-. Once the AO has taken cognizance of the income declared by the assessee and the assessee has been able to demonstrate that the return was filed in response to notice u/s. 148, reassessment order passed without issue of notice u/s. 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 3890/Del/2025 For AY 2019-20 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal 20. With respect to ground of appeal No. 1 & 2, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the total addition of Rs. 14,62,000/- was made for the year under appeal by alleging that these payments were found noted in the Sanjeev Tally in ledger account titled as "Sanjeev Property". As per the assessee there are two entries of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 10.04.2018 and of Rs. 4,62,000/- on 19.04.2019. In both the payments, it is mentioned 'Ashu Property AD KL Mill'. It was submitted by the assessee that it referred locatin of the said property which is situated at Plot No.18, Village Acheja, Reena Vihar, Hapur behind the KL Oil Mills and was purchased by Smt. Richa Aggarwal and not by the assessee. The relevant necessary copy of registered sale deed is placed at PB pages 66 to 82. Ld. AR submits that since the said property was not purchased by the assessee, therefore, no addition could should be made in the hands of the assessee even it is held that the payments were made in cash out of the undisclosed income. He thus, requested that the addition made be deleted. 21. On the other hand,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17 is void ab initio and bad in law, as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued prior to the completion of the reassessment proceedings. The entire reassessment is consequently liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 6 That the reasons recorded are bad in law and reflect non-application of mind, as the appellant's alleged share in the construction expensed has been arbitrarily taken at 1,95,75,326/- without any ownership ratio, formula, working or payment trail. On the basis of registered ownership, the appellant's correct share is only 46,95,998/-which is below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) for reopening beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2023 is barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 7 That the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,86,00,000/- solely on the basis of alleged third-party digital material, namely "Sanjeev Tally", found from M/s Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills and not from the premises or books of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus, submits that the order passed without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) though the assessee had filed the return of income is bad in law be quashed. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following judgments: • Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC). • PR. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2016] 64 taxmann. • ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon - Supreme Court of India. • Mukesh Khurana v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 223 (Delhi Trib.) [21-03- 2025] • Vinod Kumar Kasturchand Golechha v. ITO [2023] 174 taxmann.com 912 (ITAT Mumbai). • Major Suresh Yadav v. ITO, 153 taxmann.com 159 (ITAT Delhi) • ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay HC). • Principal CIT v. Kamla Devi Sharma [2018] 96 taxmann.com 659 (Rajasthan HC). • Smt. Amina Ismil Rangari v. ITO, Ward 17(2)4 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 160 (ITAT Mumbai Bench. • Delhi Kalyan Samiti v. Assessee, ITA Nos. 1770-1772/Del/2010 (ITAT Delhi) [04.03.2015]. • M/s Bhaval Synthetics (India) Ltd. ....