DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI vs. SH. RAJEEV DHINGRA, HARYANA

Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that formal documentation submitted by the assessee does not address the critical aspect of genuineness of the transaction which needs to be examined against the stringent human probabilities and ground reality of camouflaging of money laundering transactions and not just on 7 the face value of the documents? And Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the detailed analysis done by the AO to prove rigging in Yamini Investments which is also evident, from SEBI order under section 11(1), 11(4) and 11b of sebi act, 1992 in the matter of Yamini Investment Company Ltd. (WTM/AB/IVD/ID1 1/29124/2023-24) dated 4/09/20237 Rs. 0

Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. 8 CIT(A) erred in accepting that Sh. Aseem Gupta would have issued a receipt of cash loan without even taking the loan?

Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the receipt of cash loan, different cheques found and various other evidences found at premise of Sh Ramavtar Aggarwal cannot be rebutted and substantially prove that the assessee had advanced cash loan to Sh Aseem Gupta at an interest of 2% per month?

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that in this case which pertains to A.Y. 2016- 17. A notice has been issued u/s.153C on 16.03.2022 which is after 01.04.2021. He also argued that the matter / documents pertaining to the assessee was handed over by the AO of the searched party to the AO of the assessee after 01.04.2021, therefore, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC). The date of transfer of material could be taken as the date of intimation/ search for the issuance of notice u/s.153C. Since this date comes after 01.04.2021, therefore, as per the Ld. Counsel of the assessee the assessment order should have been passed u/s.147 of the Act as the date of assessment order is 31.03.2023 but the Ld. AO instead of passing the order u/s.147 of Act, passed the order u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act which is against the mandate of the Income Tax Act. Notice should have been issued u/s.148 of the Act instead of Section 153C of the Act. The Ld. AO cited the case laws of Hargovind v. ACIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 197 (Madras HC) and Geetanjali Bhayana v. DCIT, in

Per contra the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO.

We have considered the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee. We have also taken on record various case laws discussed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. We find that it is very clear from the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act that after 01.04.2021 notices u/s.153C cannot be issued instead of notices should have been issued u/s.148 of the Act and the assessment should have been completed u/s.147 of the Act. But here in this case the AO of the assessee has recorded satisfaction on 16.03.2022 and passed the order on 31.03.2023 but instead of issuing the notice u/s.148 and passing the order u/s.147 the notice was issued u/s.153C of the Act and the assessment order was issued u/s.153C/143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the action of the AO cannot be sustained. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO is hereby quashed.

In this case a cross objection has also been filed by the assessee in which grounds of appeal of cross objection are as under :-

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C/143(3) which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order dated 31-03-2023 without there being requisite approval in terms of section 153D and in any case approval, if any. is mechanical without application of mind and is no approval in the eyes of law.

That the cross objector craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the ground(s) of cross objection before or at the time of hearing.”

Since we have quashed the assessment order passed by the AO on 31.03.2023 u/s.153C/143(3) of the Act, therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.