NITESH RASTOGI HUF,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-6(2), LUCKNOW

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘एकल’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.285/LKW/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nitesh Rastogi HUF v. The Income Tax Officer, 442/23, Manohar Nagar, Range-6(2) Thakurganj, Lucknow-226003, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, U.P. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narahi Bazar, Narahi, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 262001 PAN:AAFHN1080E अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Shukla, CIT- DR सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date of hearing: 21 10 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date of 28 10 2026 pronouncement: O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.11.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the notice u/s 148 dated 26-03-2024 has been issued by ITO - 2(1), Lko who does not possess jurisdiction over the Assessee and assessment Order dated 28.03.2025 has been passed by ITO 6(2), Lko and thus the person issuing the notice u/s 148 and person passing the assessment order are different and no order u/s 127 has been passed transferring the jurisdiction from ITO 2(1) to ITO 6(2) and thus the notice u/s 148 and subsequent order are void ab-intio without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 8 (2) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in passing ex- partee order without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. (3) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts in not considering that the notice was issued on email id which belong to the previous counsel and the Assessee was not aware of the service of the notices. (4) That Notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 26.03.2024 has been issued by ITO-2(1), Lucknow, who have no Jurisdiction to issue the same in view of CBDT Circular Notification dated 29.03.2022 read with section 151A & 144B wherein it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the Notice u/s 148 of I. T. Act, 1961, hence the present assessment is invalid as per law. (5) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Lucknow erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 19,99,900/- u/s 69 and not considering that the Assessee has not paid any "On Money" of Rs. 19,99,900/- to Omaxe Group against the Purchase of Property from Omaxe. (6) That the Ld. A. O. erred on facts and in law in treating the figures found in excel sheet - Main Report of Rs. 13,460/-, 2,775/- and Rs. 1,016/- and Rs. 2,748/-aggregating to Rs. 19,999/- as Rs. 19,99,900/- by multiplying with factor of 100 is solely based on assumptions of Investigation Wing without bringing any corroborative evidences. (7) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not confronting the complete Statement of any person admitting to have received On Money of Rs. 19,99,900/- from Assessee (8) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the cross examination of the alleged witnesses on the basis of which the Ld. A. O. is of the view that the Assessee paid On Money to Omaxe Group. 9) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that employees of Omaxe has nowhere stated in statement that cash/on money of Rs. 19,99,900/- was received from "Assessee". (10) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that the addition has been made on the basis of excel sheet extracted from Third Party Computer and not from the possession of the Assessee and thus no presumption u/s 132(4A) or Section 292C can be drawn against the Assessee. (11) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that the Addition made is based on the data extracted by the Investigation Wing from 3rd. Party Computer and Hard disk which cannot be utilized against the Assessee and are not sufficient to charge any person with Liability unless they are corroborated with any other evidence on record. (12) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that the entries in Loose papers / sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act. (13) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that the excel sheet alleged to have been containing the information of cash receipts dose not bear any signature of Assessee.

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 8 (14) That no receipts/acknowledgements were found from 'Omaxe' for receipt of alleged "on money" of Rs. 19,99,900/- from Assessee. (15) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Lucknow erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1926600/- as unexplained investment being the amount paid by the Assessee to Omaxe Gary Buildtech Pvt Ltd. against purchase of Commercial Unit No. MCCL/Block-1/17 in project Metro City Commercial-2. (16) That the addition made is highly excessive contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice and without having its say on the reasons relied.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 46 days. The assessee has filed petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the petition seeking condonation of delay and also the contents of the supporting affidavit. It was submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.11.2025 was communicated to an email ID belonging to the previous counsel of the assessee, whereas the assessee had furnished his email ID, i.e., jamunalko0@gmail.com, in Form No. 35. It was further submitted that since the notices as well as the impugned order were sent to an email ID which did not belong to the assessee, he remained unaware of the passing of the impugned order and, consequently, could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It was, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 4 of 8 impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.11.2025 was communicated to an email ID belonging to the previous counsel of the assessee, whereas the assessee had furnished his email ID, i.e., jamunalko0@gmail.com, in Form No. 35. It was further submitted that since the notices as well as the impugned order were sent to an email ID which did not belong to the assessee, he remained unaware of the passing of the impugned order. We, therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC) hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 5 of 8 6. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts of the case in right perspective. He further submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Lucknow, whereas the assessment order was passed by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Lucknow, without there being any order transferring jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act. Further, he contended that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was not in accordance with the provisions of section 151A of the Act and the scheme notified by the CBDT. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.19,99,900/- made u/s 69 of the Act is wholly unjustified, as the assessee had not paid any on-money to Omaxe Group towards the purchase of property. It was submitted that the addition was made merely on the basis of certain entries found in an Excel sheet recovered from a third party, without there being any independent corroborative evidence establishing that the assessee had actually paid the alleged amount. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that neither the complete statements of the persons relied upon by the AO were furnished to the assessee nor was any opportunity of cross-examination afforded. It was also submitted that no receipt, acknowledgement or other documentary evidence was brought on record to establish that the assessee had paid the alleged on-money. It was contended that the addition made on the basis of third-party material, without confronting the same to the assessee and without providing an effective opportunity of rebuttal, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Regarding the addition of Rs.19,26,600/-, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 6 of 8 below failed to appreciate the facts and material relating to the purchase of the commercial unit from Omaxe Gary Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to explain the nature and source of the investment.

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 7 of 8 could not place the relevant facts and supporting evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his claim. I find that the assessee has raised various legal as well as factual grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. The assessee has specifically challenged the jurisdiction of the officer issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and has also questioned the validity of the reassessment proceedings in the light of the provisions of section 151A of the Act. Further, on merits, the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs.19,99,900/- made on account of alleged on-money paid to Omaxe Group and the addition of Rs.19,26,600/- made on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of a commercial unit. I find that the addition of Rs.19,99,900/- is stated to have been made on the basis of certain entries found in an Excel sheet recovered from a third party. The assessee has disputed the correctness of the interpretation of such entries and has also raised objections regarding non-supply of the statements relied upon by the AO and denial of opportunity of cross-examination. These objections require proper examination in the light of the material available on record. Similarly, the addition of Rs.19,26,600/- also requires examination after considering the explanation and supporting evidence, if any, furnished by the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before me, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice and to be fair with both the parties, deem it necessary and expedient under the facts of the present case to set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is hereby directed to consider submissions and evidences; as furnished by the assessee in support of its claim and verify the veracity of such

ITA No.285/LKW/2026 Page 8 of 8 claim. The AO would frame the assessment afresh. The assessee is directed not to seek adjournment without any reasonable cause. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2026.

Sd/- [कुल भारत] [KUL BHARAT] उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 28/10/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT Digitally signed VIJAY PAL by VIJAY PAL 4. DR SINGH SINGH 5. Guard File Date: 2026.10.28 16:41:36 +05'30' By Order Sr. Private Secretary