GAURAV MITTAL,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER FACELESS UNIT, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI

BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1292/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 GAURAV MITTAL, Vs. ASSESSING OFFICER C/O PANKAJ SHARMA, FACELESS UNIT, ADVOCATE, DELHI 34, VIJAY BLOCK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI – 110 092 [PAN: APOPM311OQ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR.

Date of hearing: 03/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25/06/2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A))”] vide order dated 19-12-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 arising out the assessment order dated 25-3-2022 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.That the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of passing the assessment order on the basis of original return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 (in place of AY 2018-19) by the assessee. In reply of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, assessee has filed his return of income u/s. 148 of the Act for the AY 2018-19 on 12.12.2022 and the same has been informed to the AO by the assessee. But the AO has passed an assessment order on the basis of original return for the AY 2015-16 (in place of AY 2018-19) without rejecting and taking cognizance of the

return filed by the assessee u/s. 139(1) and 148 of the Act respectively for the AY 2018-19 and without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act, is injudicious, not as per the statute and bad in law. Hence, the order passed by the AO is bad in law and should be quashed. 2. That the NFAC erred in confirming order passed by the AO of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, which has so many legal defects. As the notice u/s. 148A as well as order u/s. 148A(d) dated 31.3.2022 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.3.2022 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer but the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act was assessed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) which is against the procedure as prescribed in the notification dated 29.3.2022 issued by the CBDT. Hence should be quashed. The action taken by the AO is against the judicial pronouncements of various courts and is based on inadequate appreciation of facts. 3. That the NFAC erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Authority who has wrongly made addition of income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 33,00,190/- u/s. 69A of the Act, made by the AO on surmise and conjectures which is against the statue and bad in law. 4. That the NFAC erred in confirming the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, passed by the AO are devoid of merit and against the principle of natural justice as the AO has not issued any show cause about the proposed addition in the income. As per the principle of natural justice an opportunity must be provided to the assessee before creating such a huge demand. 5. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act passed by the AO is bad in law, wrong on facts and absolutely based on suspicious surmises and conjectures. 6. That the NFAC erred in confirming the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 31.3.2022 as well as the service of the same to the assessee on 1.4.2022, issued by the Assessing Authority which is barred by limitation u/s. 153 of the Act. 7. That the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of addition of income which was already credited in the books of accounts as well as trading and

profit and loss account of the assessee. It is well settled position of law no addition can be made without rejecting the books of accounts and the same has been declared in this return of income. 8. That the appellant craves the lave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and the addition made of Rs. 33,00,190 may be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 26,90,519/-. In this case AO has received information that one Md. Youns/Ravinder Dev Prop. M/s Rajesh Kumar Suresh Kumar & Sons and M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd were involved in the practice of issuing and availing both sale/ purchase bills without making any actual transactions. Also, the name of the assessee appeared in the list of beneficiaries of fake invoices circulated by the CBIC. Accordingly, the AO initiated proceedings in the case of assessee u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 was issued after passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 31.3.2022 and after obtaining approval of the competent authority. In compliance the assessee filed return of income on 12.12.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 25,40,520/-. Meanwhile, the AO issued a letter dated 12.10.2022, which was partly complied by the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.11.2022, but no compliance was made. The AO again issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 02.12.2022, in compliance the assessee filed copy of ITR, Bank account statement, Audit Report, ledger account in respect of M/s Rajesh Kumar Suresh Kumar and Sons and M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd. The AO considered the submissions filed by the assessee and issued a show cause notice dated 2.2.2023 wherein, the assessee was show caused as to why the total amount of Rs. 33,00,190/- should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. AO after analyzing the information from the CBIC and the nature of transactions reported by the assessee noted that it is confirmed that the transactions claimed to have been made with the above two parties are fake. Hence, the total amount received from them of Rs. 33,00,190/- is treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act in the books of accounts of the assessee. Against the order of the AO the assessee preferred the

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 19-12-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee has filed his return of income on 12.12.2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 148 of the Act and the same has been filed after giving instruction by the A.O. vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 02.12.2022 and the same has been informed to the AO vide reply dated 12.12.2022. He further submitted that the AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.11.2022 against the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act vide acknowledgment no. 357179441301018 dated 30.10.2018 and after issuing the said notice the AO has given instruction and opportunity to the assessee through notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 02.12.2022 to file return u/s 148 of the Act. In reply of above said notice the assessee has filed return of income u/s 148 of the Act on dated 12.12.2022 vide acknowledgment no. 842594760121222 and the copy of the same has also been provided to the AO and the same has been acknowledged by the A.O. in para 3.2 of the assessment order but the said return of income was neither considered nor rejected by the AO and assessed the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act against the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act in place of return filed u/s 148 of the Act by the assessee. He further submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has never been issued to the assessee against the return filed u/s 148 of the Act by the assessee. Hence, he requested that assessment may be quashed on this count. On merit of the case, Ld. AR submitted that NFAC erred in confirming the action of Assessing Authority who has wrongly made addition of income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 33,00,190/- u/s. 69A of the Act, made by the AO on surmises and conjectures which is against the statue and bad in law, thus, the addition be deleted. 5. During the hearing, Ld. DR filed the copy of notice u/d. 148 dated 31.3.2022 and stated that the same was issued within time. Thus, he vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that in the instant case notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2022 and as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act, the limitation of three years applies to the issuance of notice, hence, the plea of the assessee is not tenable and thus rejected.

transactions with Md. Youns/Ravinder Dev Proprietor M/s Rajesh Kumar Suresh Kumar & Sons and M/s. Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd., are sales transaction and credit transaction are receipts in nature which are duly credited in the books of account of the appellant. On the basis of said explanation of the assessee, the AO has accepted return of income filed by the assessee and no objection was raised by the AO, in regards of sales, purchases and all other credit and debit transactions in the books of accounts of assessee. Hence the addition made under section 69A of the Act by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus the same is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 25.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGGAR

Date: 25.06.2026