RAJIV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 16, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.876/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rajiv Gupta Vs. DCIT 2, Cavalery Lane Mall Road, Central Circle – 16 Jawahar Nagar, Shakti New Delhi Nagar, North Delhi-110007 PAN No.AFEPG3221J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Amit Goyal, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Bhopal, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 13/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13/07/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-26, Delhi for the 2023-24. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as the assessing officer has not complied with the provisions of section 148 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned assessing officer and the addition made therein is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 42,84,000/- on account of rent income under the head of income from house property. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 29,96,418/-on account of alleged bogus expenses u/s 28 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 1,67,70,000/- 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to the provisions of section 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

the Ld. DR as well as by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. We have also perused the submission filed by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the various orders of the coordinate Benches of the Delhi Tribunal as well as many other Tribunal’s. It has been categorically held in the coordinate Bench order of Homelife Buildcom (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2025) 176 taxmnna.com 614 in which Hon’ble Bench has given following findings on the same issue which is as under :-

"11.4 In conclusion, it was submitted that since the year under appeal formed part of the three assessment years immediately preceding the year in which search was conducted, the assessment ought to have been framed under section 148 with approval u/s 148B. The framing of the assessment u/s 143(3) and approval taken only for the purposes of section 143(3) was thus asserted to be fundamentally defective, non-compliant with statutory mandate, and consequently void ab initio. On these grounds,” it was prayed that the impugned assessment be quashed.”

the Act. Since it has not been done in the present case, therefore, in our considered view the order passed by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be confirmed. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed, therefore, assessee’s appeal on this issue is allowed. 7. Since we have given our findings on the jurisdictional issue quashing the assessment order, other issues on merit becomes academic in nature. So we are not inclined to give our findings on other issues. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 13.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24 .09.2026 Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi