AJAY KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the common order of

the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as

the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed

before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17

referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 144/147/148 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders

of the lower authorities are as under: -

ITA No. & Ld. FAA who Appeal No. & Date of order AO who passed the AY passed the appellate of the Ld. FAA assessment order & order Date of order 6449/D/25 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : NFAC, Delhi 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Dated 29.03.2022 26/1079581043(1) Dated 13.08.2025 6450/D/25 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : Assessment Unit, 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Income Tax 26/1079582019(1) Department Dated 13.08.2025 Dated 19.05.2023

manufacturing and trading of sweet and snacks in the name and style of

Gupta Sweets. The case of assessee was reopened by notice u/s 148 dated

21.07.2022 for AY; 2016-17 and this reopening itself has been challenged by

way of ground No. 7 on the basis that the reopening notice is hit by the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme of India in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal

(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). In this context, we find that as notice u/s 148 was

issued on 22.06.2021 and TOLA had extended the period of issuance of

notice u/s 148 up to 30.06.2021. Thus, there was surviving period of 8 days

for issuance of notice which was treated as a notice u/s 148A(a) under the

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 new regime. The assessee had responded u/s 148A(b) on 01.07.2022 consider

surviving period of 8 days the order u/s 148A(d) could have been passed up

to 09.07.2022 only while the same has been passed on 21.07.2022. Thus,

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 notice vitiated and these facts and settled

position of law could not have been disputed by the ld. DR. Accordingly,

corresponding ground deserves to be sustained and the appeal of the assessee

for AY: 2016-17 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, ordered.

2.1 It is also pointed out that when the notice u/s 148 was issued on

13.07.2022 which was issued with a prior approval of PCIT-12, Delhi and not

PCCIT. This issue is also covered against the department on the basis of

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

for issue notice u/s 148 for AY: 2015-16 were issued in the case of assessee

on the basis of information shared by the ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1)(2)

International Taxation, New Delhi, upon us on the basis of survey action

conducted at premises of Arun Suri resident of 255 Sainik Vihar,

Preetampura on 06.02.2018. During survey action it was found that in

Financial Year 2014-15 assessee had made foreign remittances worth

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Rs.10,18,00,000/- to Hong Kong & Sanghai banking corporation limited.

The assessee had filed return of income showing gross turnover/receipts of

Rs.11,45,230/- and total taxable income of Rs.2,79,710/-. Thus, on this basis

income chargeable to tax escaping the assessment the case of assessee was

reopened. The assessee had claimed that the assessee is engaged in the

business of manufacturing and trading of sweets and snacks under the name

of M/s. Gupta Sweets. The assessee has stated that in connection with M/s.

Bhuvi Enterprises, the assessee has been a victim of fraud and since he was

totally ignorant of the said business and has no relation with the same.

Further the assessee also stated that there is also as enquiry going on with the

Enforcement Directorate and CBI for the same where his statement has been

recorded. The assessee also states that as per his point of view after all such

investigations by the said department he has not been found guilty.

above reply of the assessee has been carefully gone through and mere

statement of facts without any supporting evidences regarding the financial

events involved with the assessee cannot be accepted. Any prudent

individual, if involved in a fraud will produce various papers put up in from

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17

of various law enforcement authorities to prove his situation. However, the

assessee has just written the same in a paper and submitted it. The same

cannot be accepted and in view of the largeness of the issues involved in the

case. Since the assessee has not provided with any further information

regarding the same, the undersigned has no option but to accept the

information available as per the recordings made during the proceedings of

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence an amount of

Rs.10,18,00,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee under the

provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further Penalty u/s.

271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income of

Rs.10,18,00,000/-.

follows:

“3. I have examined the material available on hand and information available on system. It is clear that during the financial year the assessee had remitted Rs. 10,18,00,000/- to Hongkong and Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. under the name of his fictitious firm M/s Bhuvi Enterprises which was created for money laundering. During interrogation the assessee has accepted that vide para 5.3 of the statement recorded on oath as under: "Statement of Shri Ajay Kumar, prop. M/s Bhuvi Enterprises, a front firm opened by Arun Suri was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 on 21.06.2017 wherein he interalia stated that Ram Pratap Singh had informed him that one Ashwani Bhardwaj, who used to come to his shop for repairing his motorcycle, was employed with Arun Suri on a salary of Rs. 15000/- per

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17

month that Ram Pratap Singh had also told him about the mobile import business of Arun Suri for which he needed to open firms in the names of others that since he was in need of money he agreed to the offer and gave a copy of his PAN card to Ram Pratap Singh, that on the instructions of Arun Suri/Ashwani Bhardwaj he went to the office of Arun Suri situated at Moti Nagar, Delhi where he took his signatures on various documents, that on the instructions of Arun Suri he had gone to submit these documents to Bank of Baroda, Ashok Vihar and as per my knowledge these documents were related to the opening of accounts of the firm (M/s Bhuvi Enterprises) opened by Arun Suri in his name that he was paid a salary of Rs. 15000/- per month in cash by Arun Suri that after opening the bank accounts they were called by Arun Suri on various occasions for signing various documents that he had no knowledge about the work done in the firm opened in his name by Arun Suri and when asked about the same he always said that the turnover of the firms of Arun Suri was quite large and these firms where opened for tax saving purposes, that today he was shown the account opening form with Bank of Baroda, Ashok Vihar, that to open this Bank account the doments like Adhar card and PAN card used by Sh. Arun Suri are my own but he have no knowledge of the other documents submitted at the time of account opening."

Therefore, it is evident that the assessee has intentionally created a fake firm under the name of M/s Bhuvi Enterprises with Sh.Arun Suri. The modus operandi of these entities are that they made facilitators in active connivance with importers and exporters created front companies in the name of persons with no financial worth to undertake import export business and took IEC Number from DGFT on the basis of the documents like PAN cards and driving licences. Bank accounts of these front companies were operated in Bank of Baroda. These facilitators simultaneously created/purchased companies in Dubai and Hong Kong in which they appointed their own persons to operate and also opened the bank accounts of these companies abroad, the exporters also opened companies in Hong Kong and Dubai to receive the remittances from the fictitious companies created/purchased in Hong Kong and Dubai. The said alleged fake importers through the facilitators submitted fake proforma invoice created by them and other mandatory forms/declarations for the purported future imports like form A-1 (in case of purported import of goods) and declaration to the effect that goods would be imported within stipulated period and that in the event of non import of goods, the fund remitted outside would be repatriated back to India.

In this case the assessee had remitted a total amount of Rs. 10,18,00,000/- to Hong Kong and Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd during the FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. Since, the income declared by the assessee in his ITR does not reflect the actual position of total amount remitted by the assessee to Hong Kong and Sanghai during the financial year, hence the whole total amount of Rs.10,18,00,000/- is remained unexplained. The whole amount involved is unexplained income of the assessee for the period under consideration. Considering the unexplained nature of amount involved, it is clear that the assessee had income chargeable to tax during the A.Y 2015-16. Despite having income

P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 chargeable to tax, the assessee has not furnish any return of Income. The case of assessee accordingly come under explanation 2(b) of section 147 of Income Tax, 1961 which lay down that the following shall also be deemed to be case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment " where a return of income has been furnishes by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income of has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return.”

2015-16 it has been contended that assessee was not properly represented

before ld. First Appellate Authority and in fact no notice were issued thus,

received by the assessee. Then ld. DR defended this assertion however, we

find that in the impugned order NFAC has not mention as to when and by

what mode notices were issued and what was the response of the assessee.

Ld. Counsel has submitted that ld. CIT(A) has invoke provision of Section

69A and assessee was not found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery

or other valuable articles and he was charged of making remittances from the

bank account which was non refundable in nature. Therefore, assessee cannot

be considered to be.

issue should be covered by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we restore the

P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 6449 & 6450/Del/2025 Ajay Kumar AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 issue on merits as well as law in fresh adjudication of ld. CIT(A). The appeal

for AY: 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 29.04.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS