ATAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 70 (1)-DELHI, DELHI

O R D E R

“1. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,79,200/- as undisclosed income u/s.69A being cash deposited in the bank account maintained with ICICI Bank without considering the fact that the assessee is a salaried class employee having no other source of income and cash deposited in the bank account was from past withdrawals including savings, thus the assessee prays that addition of Rs.2,79,200/- deserves to be deleted in full.

2. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,79,200/- as undisclosed income u/s.69A and applying the higher tax rate u/s.115BBE @ 60% plus surcharge @25% without considering the fact that higher rate specified u/s.115BBE is applicable for the Page | 1 transactions held w.e.f 1 April, 2017, thus the assessee prays that the higher rate of tax including the surcharge applied u/s.115BBE may kindly be not to be applied, accordingly the assessee prays that the undisclosed income of Rs.2,79,200/- deserves to be taxed @30% u/s.115BBE including surcharge as applicable to the normal income.

raised at grounds of appeal no.3, that on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) having co-terminus power with that of the AO, erred in not referring the matter to DVO for valuation of the immovable property as specified in the Proviso 3 of the section 56(2) (vii) clause (b), even though the assessee is insisting that immovable property was purchased as per the market rate prevailing in the locality where the property is situated, thus the assessee prays that the matter of valuation of the property may kindly be referred to the DVO. 5.That the assessee is praying for TDS credit of Rs.4,000/- duly reflected in Form 26AS not allowed by the AO.

6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. The appellant may be allowed to add/amend/withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or at any time before hearing with due permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal :-

1. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC-Delhi) erred in having assumed jurisdiction u/s.151A r.w.s 1448 of the I.T Act, 1961 from 13/12/2021 by issuing notice u/s.142(1) for conducting faceless assessment prior to issuance of notification u/s.151A, dated 29/03/2022 for operation of faceless assessment, accordingly the reassessment order dated 26/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B passed by the NFAC, Delhi in violation of the provisions of section 151A r.w.s 144B may kindly be held as null & void and to be quashed.

2. That on facts, and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 70(1), Delhi [JAO] erred in transmitting the preliminary jurisdictional notice u/s.148 dated 31/03/2021 to an unrelated/wrong Email Id in contravention to section 282 r.w.r 127, thus the preliminary jurisdictional section 148 notice was not served upon the assessee, accordingly the basic jurisdictional requirement was not fulfilled, thus it is prayed that the whole reassessment proceedings including the consequential reassessment order may kindly be held as bad in law and to be quashed. POA 3. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the JAO erred in recording reasons to believe with the wrong presumption that the assessee is the sole owner of the immovable property without even not considering the registered sale deed reflecting co- ownership, accordingly jurisdiction assumed for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 under the un amended provisions by recording incorrect reasons to believe may kindly be held as bad in law, accordingly it is requested to declare the reassessment order dated 26/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B as unsustainable in the eyes of law. (4). That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the both the lower erred in making/confirming the addition of Rs.15,90,000/- u/s.56(2) (vii) clause (b) without considering the fact that provisions of the section u/s.56(2)(vii) being deeming provision should be strictly construed, accordingly the addition of Rs.15,90,000/- solely in the assessee ignoring the registered sale deed filed which reflects co-ownership, may kindly be deleted in full. (B).Additional legal jurisdictional grounds of appeal

raised above by the assessee are purely legal in nature goes to the root of the matter can be taken as additional grounds at any stage of proceeding and even before the Hon'ble ITAT for the 1st time and are emanating from the records available before the Tribunal. The legal grounds do not require any investigation and all materials are already on record before the Tribunal. (C). That no prejudice will cause to revenue by admitting these legal grounds, since, the revenue will be having a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard on these issues. ('D). That in the absence of admission of above grounds, the assessee may suffer irreparable loss. (E).It is there humbly prayed before your honour to admit and adjudicate the additional legal jurisdictional grounds of appeal raised above. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of "National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)","VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H)", "Siksa O Anusadhan Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112) [Orissa.HC)", "CIT Vs. Mohd. Ayyub Agency (1992) 197 ITR '637 (AII.HC)". "CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.HC)-(FB)", "P.V.Doshi Vs.CIT [ 1978] 113 ITR

22. (Guj.HC)","CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd [1993] 200 ITR 275 (Del.HC)',"Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd Vs.CIT [1992] 198 ITR

1. (Del.HC)".

4. I find that the facts relevant for adjudication of the aforesaid additional grounds are already placed on record and they go to the root of the matter. Hence we deem it fit to admit those additional grounds and take up the same first for adjudication.

5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. I find that the Learned DR had placed the comments received from the Learned AO vide letter dated 4.8.2025 with regard to the additional grounds raised by the assessee. The following list of dates and gists would be relevant for adjudication of the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee:- a) Return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed already by the assessee but the same was considered invalid due to non-validation or e-verification not done by the assessee. b) As per the information received from Directorate of Income Tax, Investigation and Criminal Intelligence, New Delhi wherein it was reported that assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakhs as against the circle rate of Rs. 36,90,000. The Learned AO concluded that a sum of Rs. 15,90,000 had escaped assessment and accordingly sought to reopen the case of the assessee. c) Notice under Section 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 31- 3-21 as per the old provisions of Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO). d) No return was filed by the assessee in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. e) Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 16-11-2021 together with the questionnaire was issued by the Learned JAO f) Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 13-12-2021 was issued by NeFAC Delhi i.e. issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). g) Show cause notice dated 21-3-2022 stood issued by the FAO to the assessee h) Reassessment stood framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 26-3-2022 determining total income at Rs 20,92,400/-. i) Faceless scheme for income escaping assessment under section 151A of the Act stood notified on 29-3-2022 vide Notification No. 18/2022 by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

151A. Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment. (1)The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147 or issuance of notice under section 148 10[or conducting of enquiries or issuance of show-cause notice or passing of order under section 148A] or sanction for issue of such notice under section 151, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by—(a)eliminating the interface between the income-tax authority and the assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible;(b)optimising utilisation of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialisation;(c)introducing a team-based assessment, reassessment, re-computation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction.(2)The Central Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section (1), by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification:Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2022.(3)Every notification issued under sub-section Page | 5 (1) and sub-section (2) shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2025.