SANTOSH KUMAR RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, , KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2025 for the AY 2019-20.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.04.2023, after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act.

2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) restored the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for deciding the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we observed from the assessment order that

“Please refer to the above notice. It appears that the case has been transferred to you by NFAC, Kindly, send copy of the transfer order. It is submitted that you have no jurisdiction over the case since the CBDT has not conferred jurisdiction to you in my case. I would also like to submit that notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law. Further, time allowed to comply with notice u/s 148 was less than 3 months which is not in conformity of the standard rules of providing natural justice. Therefore, notice is also bad in law and ab initio void. The entire reassessment is liable to quashed. Even otherwise I have duly complied to notice u/s 148 by letter dated 25.05.2023 via registered email on 25.05.2023 requesting to treat the return already filed u/s 139 on 06.11.2019 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 251368521061119 and on record of the department as return submitted in response to notice u/s. 148 aforesaid. Therefore, return was duly filed in response to notice u/s 148. The issue is not in dispute that filing of letter to treat the return originally filed as return in response to u/s 148 is sufficient compliance to the notice u/s 148. Reference may be made to the following judgements:- Santosh Kumar Rungta 20, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata-700019 by investment and did not carry out any business nor any other means to have carned such a huge income Without any source of generating such a huge income I could not have given any loan of entered into any cash transaction with any person and in this case it just an act of imagination and it is impossible for me to have given any loan as alleged. Further, in connection to the allegation that I have given cash loans through Kasera Group, it is again reiterated that I did not give any loan to or had any cash loan transaction with anyone and/or through Kasera. The statements of the finance brokers were recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. However, your honour has not provided me any statements of the finance brokers or the said Anil Kumar Kasera for the Asst.

“5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the Revenue’s case on the preliminary issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to the validity of the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/144, the learned DR has contended that there being no return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148, there was no requirement of issue of notice u/s 143(2) and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/144 for want of issue of notice u/s 143(2). In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Pr. CIT vs Broadway Shoe Co. 259 Taxman 223 wherein it was held that where there was no return filed in pursuance to notice issued u/s 148, issue of notice u/s 143(2) was not required for making the assessment.

“The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), quaahing the order of the Assessing Officer under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, without appreciating the facts that assessee did not comply with the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not required in assessee's case ?

“Broker Name PAN Related Group Grand Total entity AKK Santosh Kumar ADAPR36669p Lansdowne Towers 10,15,00,000 Rungta Pvt. Ltd. Group Name: SANTOSH KUMAR RUNGTA/MADGUL PARKS PVT LTD/LANSDOWNE TOWERS PVT LTD 1. Potential lender or borrower status: Lender 2. Lenders Annexure reference: Madgul Parks P Ltd 3. Possible financial transactions deduced and decoded from hard copies obtained from DDIT (please refer Annexure in excel version for further details) Potential cash lent to various borrowers Rs. 10.15 crore 4. Entities and individuals appearing under the column "Different format of lender names" clubbed under this group can be referred in the lender directorship annexure. 5. Names of those individuals and entities which could not be construed as directly or indirectly related from public domain sources and still clubbed with Santosh Rungta is done basis the excel file named "AkkHD1000010" found in HDD "IMAGE -AKK/HD/1" which appears to be an image of the computer found at residence of AKK and highlighted in yellow for comparison purposes. 6. Entities/individuals which could not be substantiated for direct/indirect relation with Santosh Rungta but are still clubbed and grouped under this group as they are written alongside the same name in annexures by the assessee are highlighted in green below

Extract of the excel file named "AkkHD1000010" found in HDD "IMAGE - AKK/HD/1" which appears to be an image of the computer found at residence of AKK is produced as below. Santosh Rungta (Ballygunge circular Road)

Suvarn Apartment Pvt. Ltd.

Lansdown Towers Pvt. Ltd.

JG Properties Pvt. Ltd. Madgul Parks Pvt. Ltd.” 3.1.3. We note from the above that para 7 of the said report suggests the probably names given under different format of lender names in the annexure. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment cannot be made on the basis of any probability or presumption as

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata