SANDEEP TOMER,BIJNORE vs. ITO WARD 3(3), BIJNORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4829/Del/2026 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Tomar Vs ITO S/o. Shri Chandra Veer Ward – 3(3) Singh, Vill and Post Pipli Bijnore-1 AND Jat, Tehsil Chandpur, Assessment Unit Bijnore – 246 725, UP Income Tax Department PAN : AODPT 5357 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Rajeev Singh, Adv. and Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 13.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]: The above-captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.04.2026, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A), NFAC’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), arising out of the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessing Officer’ or simply the ‘AO’) for A.Y 2018-19.

ITA No.4829/Del/2026 [for A.Y 2018-19] Sandeep Tomer vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a business correspondent engaged by the SBI for extension of the bank services in village and post office Pipli Jatt, Tehsil Chandpur, District Bijnore. Information available with the Assessing Officer (AO) revealed that the assessee maintained two bank accounts with the State Bank of India (SBI). The first account bearing number 31640288045 reflected cash deposits of Rs.20,000/- and cash withdrawals of Rs.1,53,80,120/-. The second account bearing number 36174342177 reflected cash deposits of Rs.21,700/- and cash withdrawals of Rs.2,55,000/-. The AO also noted that the assessee was a non-filer of return of income for the year under consideration and had not filed any return prior to or after the issuance of the said notice. Accordingly, the assessee case was reopened under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2022. In absence of any response, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144/147, treating the total cash deposits/credits of Rs.1,56,35,120/- (Rs.1,53,80,120 + Rs.2,55,000) as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, adding the same to the total income. 3. Upon appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order dated 22.04.2026, the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds: 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has though appreciated that the case is one of a faceless assessment procedure, still he has systematically denied the mandate about the duty of the AO to issue notice on email of the assessee Page 2 of 5

ITA No.4829/Del/2026 [for A.Y 2018-19] Sandeep Tomer vs. ITO as well. To this extent, he has erred in holding that service of the notice to the assessee on the portal alone suffices. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating that the Initiation of proceedings U/s 147 culminating in issue of notice U/s 148 dated 29-03-2022 is arbitrary and illegal in as much as no notice was ever served on the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that mere uploading on the portal, the notice U/s 148 A(b), constitutes sufficient service of notice and thereby the subsequent order U/s 148A(d) and all proceedings thereafter are all valid. Going by the mandate, the same should have been declared a nullity. 4. That the reliance of the Ld. CIT(A) on the judgement of ITO VS M C Ponnoose and shifting the onus of receipt of the notice from the department to the assessee is uncalled for especially in the background of the Apex Court's Judgement in Ashish Agarwal. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence U/r 46A(1)(c) and hence could not apply himself to the fact of deposit of money in the alleged bank accounts which belonged to the customers of the SBI for which the assessee only served as a facilitator, and has instead went on to summarily reject the same on superficial consideration alone. He has further erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 1,56,35,120/- U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no opportunity of proper hearing was available to the assessee in the absence of service of various notices. Hence the assessment order as passed U/s 144 read with section 144B is uncalled for & illegal and the Ld. CIT(A) should have quashed the same on this count alone. Observations made, inferences drawn and findings recorded in this regard are uncalled for, illegal and perverse.” 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee is engaged as a business correspondent of State Bank of India. The ld. Counsel vehemently states that no notice were served to the assessee ever and the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the additional evidences filed before him. 6. On the other hand ld. DR relied on the appellate order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had filed an application before the ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A(1)(c) for admission of additional evidences as well as filed the return submission. We find that the ld. CIT(A)

Page 3 of 5

ITA No.4829/Del/2026 [for A.Y 2018-19] Sandeep Tomer vs. ITO has neither considered the written submissions nor has admitted additional evidences. In such facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of natural justice, that the issues be set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. We hereby direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the written submission and additional evidences and adjudicate on the various issue of the case afresh. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective and adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, that the assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. 8. In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No.4829/DEL/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.09.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Page 4 of 5