AMAN KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ACIT, INT. TAX. , NOIDA

That Ld. A.O DDIT Noida and DRP-2, Delhi has erred in fact and laws that the impugned assessment order dated 15.12.2025 u/s144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by making an addition of Rs. 3,94,88,190/- is arbitrary, based on mere assumptions, conjectures and surmises, without any proper inquiry or verification, and is therefore bad in law and on facts. 2. That the impugned order is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law, vague and non-speaking, not considering the Documents, Communication, Police Complaints, All Government Authority Application submitted by appellant, ICICI Bank's written fraud confirmations, but all are discarded, Therefore, whole assessment is not any concern to appellant and liable to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. DDIT(Int Tax) along with DRP-2 recommendations erred in initiating and confirmed the proceedings against the appellant, an NRI who had no physical presence in India during FY 2016-17, had left India in 2014, and had neither consented to open nor operated the alleged bank account bearing No. 663405600225 of unknown M/s XP tour and Travels, thereby wrongly fetched in high pitch liability upon an innocent assessee while failing to identify the real beneficiary of the alleged transactions. The passport and immigration records evidencing absence from India during the account opening and operational period were neither disputed nor rebutted. 4. That the Ld.A.O DDIT and DRP-2 failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry to ascertain the actual person to whom the alleged transactions were credited or debited, and erred in not examining the connected bank accounts, including those of XP Tour and Travels and ICICI Bank, thereby rendering the assessment with addition of Rs.3,94,88, 190/- unsubstantiated and liable to be deleted and without identifying the real operator or beneficiary of the alleged transactions. 5. That the impugned Assessment dated 15.12.2025 and DRP -2 recommendation order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice, as material relied upon during inquiry was neither confronted to the appellant nor was any opportunity of cross-examination or rebuttal afforded. 6. That the impugned Assessment Order and DRP proceedings are illegal and void, having been passed without bringing on record any cogent evidence establishing the appellant's involvement in the alleged transactions, and by suppressing material facts gathered during inquiry. The Ld. AO failed to verify the genuine PAN and Aadhaar of the appellant and ignored that the photograph and signature on PAN did not match the bank KYC. The Aadhaar used for account opening bore a different number, photograph, address, and signature. The Ld. AO compared signatures appearing on the account opening form with signatures on forged documents, instead of comparing them with the appellant's genuine PAN and Aadhaar, rendering the investigation perverse. 7. That the impugned Assessment order is bad in law, having been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 147, 148 and 148A of the Act, without proper application of mind, without disposing of the appellant's objections by a reasoned order, and in breach of principles of natural justice, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. 8. That the addition made under section 69A is illegal, being based solely on SFT information and erroneous inference, without any independent inquiry, investigation, or evidence linking the appellant with ownership, control, or benefit of the alleged transactions, the impugned addition is devoid of merits and bad in law. 9. That the Ld. AO and DRP-2 erred in ignoring that ICICI Bank had reported the impugned account as fraud to the Reserve Bank of India and the same was recorded in the Financial Monitoring System (FMS) bearing (FMS-72326) recorded fraud entry, as confirmed by the RBI Ombudsman, which regulatory evidence overrides any presumption arising from SFT data. 10. That the reference to third party statements and material in the absence of any opportunity of cross examination is irrelevant and extraneous and in total disregard to principles and natural justice. 11. That the "reason to believe" recorded for reopening the assessment is vague, arbitrary and unsupported by any tangible material, and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction itself is invalid. 12. That the Ld. AO has erred in law in making and arbitrary additions u/s 69A of {3,94,88,190/- based merely on entries appearing in third-party books or SFT only, without any corroborative evidence linking the appellant to such transactions, and the consequential initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC in violation of settled legal principles. Further, no mens rea, concealment, or receipt of income by the appellant has been established. Hence liable to be deleted. 13. That the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and are bad in law. 3. The only issue arising through the above grounds of appeals is regarding the action of ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.3,94,88,190/- in the hands of the assessee and its confirmation by the ld. DRP.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri P. C. Yadav, Advocate, submitted the following factual matrix of the case conveying that the Appellant is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) who left India for the USA in February 2014, visited India on 31 January 2016, and again departed for the USA on 6 March 2016. It was submitted that Since 2016, the Appellant has been working in the United States in an Information Technology company. The ld. Counsel inform that the Appellant came to know about a fraud involving misuse of his PAN only upon receipt of an email from the Income-tax Department, wherein a notice was issued on the basis of information reported under SFT through the Insight Portal by ICICI Bank, alleging cash deposits and withdrawals aggregating to 83,94,88,190/- in a current account bearing No. 663405600225 in the name of M/s XP Tour and Travels. The said account was never opened, operated, or maintained by the Appellant. The account was opened on 16 April 2016 and closed on 25 July 2016. The ld. Counsel submitted that during the said period the Appellant was not present in India. The account was opened in the absence of the Appellant using forged and fabricated documents, including misuse of PAN details and a completely different Aadhaar card not belonging to the Appellant. The Ombudsman of ICICI Bank, being the source of the SFT information, has acknowledged that the said bank account was opened fraudulently dated May 2024 and March 2025. The ld. Assessing Officer and the ld. DRP however ignoring these critical facts proceeded to add/confirm the impugned cash deposits of Rs.3,94,88,190/- in the hands of the assessee as its undisclosed income. 5. Heard, perused the material available on record.

The ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee vehemently argued that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. DRP have based their conclusions on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, in complete violation of principles of justice. The ld. Counsel in support of its contentions has placed on record a voluminous paper book in two volumes. The ld. Counsel particularly drew our attention to page No.-33B of its paper book volume-1 which contains an e-mail communication dated 10.04.2025 from the bank’s Ombudsman. Through the impugned communication, the bank had categorically confirmed that the impugned bank account, alleged to be belonging to the appellant, was opened fraudulently in appellant’s name. The bank had also conveyed that this information of the bank account being opened through fraudulence means was conveyed to the Income Tax Department through its email dated 04.01.2025, 17.01.2025 and 24.03.2025. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued that in view of the impugned categorical confirmation from the bank, there was not case for initiating any action u/s 147/148 against the assessee. The ld. Counsel argued that in view of the impugned information, the assessment order dated 15.12.2025 and DRP directions dated 27.11.2025 deserves to be set-aside and quashed. 7. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have noted that the revenue authorities have based their entire conclusions considering the fact that the assessee is owner of the impugned cash deposit of Rs.3,94,88,190/- made in the bank account no.663405600225 with the ICICI bank. We have also noted the undisputed facts on record that the ICICI bank has unequivocally confirmed that the impugned bank account was opened by some unscrupulous element employing fraudulent means. The contents of said email dated 10.04.2025 are as under:- Madam/ Sir, N20245023732818 Please refer to your Complaint number - N202425023732818 The matter was taken up with the bank and in reply, it submitted that- "In this regard, we wish to make the following submissions: • We would like to state that on receipt of his previous complaint to our Bank that aforementioned account was fraudulently opened in our Bank vide complaint number N202425023115822, we have taken up the matter for necessary investigation and post investigation, it is concluded that the said account was opened fraudulently in his name. • Further, we would like to clarify that we had earlier received two notices from the Income tax department on December 12, 2024, and February 5, 2025, requesting for his KYC documents and account statements. Accordingly, we have suitably reverted to Income tax department on January 4, 2025, and February 17, 2025. • On receipt of his complaint, we have further sent an intimation to the Income tax department (NOIDA. DCIT.IT@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN) vide our e-mail dated March 24, 2025, stating "we confirm that the Complainant's account bearing number 66XXXXXX0225 was opened fraudulently without the customer's consent and incident has already been reported to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)". • Further, with regard to his concern regarding action taken by the Bank against the erring employee, we state that we have not filed any FIR against the erring employee and Bank would take necessary action against the employee as per Bank's policy, However, since it is internal to the Bank, we would be unable to disclose the same to him." In this connection, you are requested to submit your comments/contention on the bank's response along with evidence (if any). Kindly ensure to submit your reply positively within three days failing which it will be understood that you have no further objections in the matter.” 9. We have noted that the revenue has not brought anything on record to counter the findings in the email communication of ICICI Bank dated 10.04.2025. Thus, once it is proved that the assessee did not have any valid, legal, rightful connection with the impugned bank account no.663405600225 and its contents, no addition qua cash deposits in the said bank accounts, can be made in the hands of the assessee. So being the case, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and Page 6 of 7 quash the assessment order dated 15.12.2025. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2026.