M/S PH INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5706/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/s. PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner 1st D-17, Floor, Okhla of Income Tax Industrial Area, Phase-1, Central Circle – 32 Tehkhand, Okhla Industrial Delhi Estate S.O., South East Delhi – 110 020 PAN No. AAICP 5369 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri R.K. Mehra, C.A. Revenue by Shri Sudip Majumder, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 30.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising from the assessment order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle – 32, New Delhi (hereinafter

ITA No. 5706/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT referred to as the ‘ld. AO’ ) for under section 147 r.w.s 144 Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee filed the following grounds of appeal as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in arbitrarily and wrongly assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and further ignoring that the entire assessment proceedings get vitiated due to the foundational defect in the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the said Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in issuing notice under section 148 by the Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) on 22-03-2024 though issuing notice under section 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 28-06-2024 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Income tax Department (FAO), thus raising the question of assuming jurisdiction itself in law related to the assessment proceedings in appeal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in issuing first notice under section 142(1) on 31-07-2024 by the Faceless assessing officer (FAO) and thereafter all the subsequent notices having been issued by the Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) under section 142(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 thus again raising the question of assuming Jurisdiction in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in completely ignoring that the impugned notice issued under section 148 was not only sent at the wrong address but also the e. mail was sent to SAURABH@PROFFERIT.IN which does not relate to the appellant company, instead of sending it at correct e. mail id INFO@JNGINTERNATIONAL.COM already available with the Income tax Department which again raises the question of validity of the jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act as well the resultant assessment completed under section 144 read with section of the 147 of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in framing the impugned assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act based on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures alone. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing Page 2 of 7

ITA No. 5706/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT officer in confirming the addition of Rs.7500000 under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 and alternatively also bringing it to tax under section 56 of the Act by using his powers, without considering the facts of the case and completely ignoring the documentary evidences produced in that respect and furthermore wrongly upholding the application of the provisions contained in section 115BBE of the Act. 7. That the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 as unexplained cash credit/investment without appreciating that the appellant company had legitimately taken a loan/advance of Rs. 75,00,000 from M/s Ekambar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. through proper banking channels during the preceding previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 and it was repaid during the previous year in appeal by wrongly bringing it to tax as income from other sources under section 56 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the assessment year in appeal and furthermore wrongly upholding the application of the provisions contained in section 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in placing reliance on the search operation conducted on the premises of two persons namely Mr. Deepak Agarwal and Mr. Himanshu Verma of M/s Ekambar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and wrongly presuming the petitioner company's involvement in any accommodation entries without brining on record any material evidence and without linking the appellant company related in any such activities whatsoever. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer and in ignoring that the statements relied upon by the learned assessing officer have no relevance in the absence of any nexus or link between those persons, relating to the subject matter of additions of Rs.7500000 made under section 69A/56 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and relying on their statements which have no evidentiary value without examination as per law. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in confirming the addition of Rs.275000 under section 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 making assessment on notional basis without bringing any material documentary evidence on record in that regard.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company, had filed its original return of income on 04.10.2018 and revised its return on 28.02.2019 declaring a total income of

Page 3 of 7

ITA No. 5706/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Rs.1,47,23,160/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 vide notice dated 22.03.2024 in response to which the return was not filed. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.07.2024 to furnish the details of unsecured loan, share capital, share premium and advance against property with Galaxy Group. As the assessee failed to respond to the notice, the AO passed an ex-parte order under section 147 r.w.s 144 making an addition of Rs.75 lakh under section 69A and Rs.2.75 lakhs under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, at the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice u/s 148 dated 22.03.2024 was issued to reopen AY 2018-19. Since more than 3 years has expired from the end of relevant assessment year i.e., AY 2018-19, approval for issuance of notice have statutorily to be taken from PrCCIT/PrDGIT/CCCIT/DGIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act. The ld AR stated that approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has been taken from PCIT/CIT, hence the notice is invalid. 6. On other hand learned DR relied on the orders of the AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessment year Page 4 of 7

ITA No. 5706/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT involved is 2018-19 and the notice for reopening the assessment u/s 147 was issued on 22.03.2024. It is also an admitted fact that this notice under section 148 was issued with the approval of PCIT, as is reflected from the notice itself. We find that the provision of Section 151(ii) provides that if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, then the specified authority for granting approval for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax. It is only in such cases where less than three years are elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority is PCIT or PDIT or CIT or DIT under section 151(i). We find that in the instant case pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19, the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 22.03.2024 which is beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. In such cases, the specified authority for grant of sanction/approval prescribed under the provision of section 151(ii), is PCCIT or CCIT. In the instant case, as the approval has been granted by the PCIT, the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, is vitiated and renders the notice u/s 148 as well as the consequential proceedings, invalid. As the assumption of jurisdiction is vitiated, we accordingly quash the notice 148 of the Act as well as the relevant reassessment proceedings. Page 5 of 7

ITA No. 5706/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] PH Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.5706/Del/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 10.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 6 of 7