NEETA SUNIL GADE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

Since the assessee did not furnish any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that despite asking the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons for reopening of the assessment he did not supply the same, for which the assessee could not make any submission. He submitted that the notice dated 31.03.2021 received by the assessee shows in the portal of the department as 01.04.2021. Relying on various decisions he submitted that since the notice is dated 01.04.2021 as per the portal of the department, therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law, the entire re-assessment proceedings are to be quashed.

Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi vs. ITO vide & 894/PUN/2024 order dated 06.08.2025 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, he submitted that when the notice dated 31.03.2021 was served upon the assessee on 03.04.2021 through e-mail, such notice issued after 31.03.2021 without following due procedure mandated under the provisions of section 148 and 148A of the Act effective from 01.04.2021 should be quashed.

Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41 (All), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere digitally signing notice is not issuance of notice and point of time when a digitally signed notice in form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside control of originator, i.e., assessing authority, that shall be date and time of issuance of notice under section 148, read with section 149. He accordingly submitted that the re-assessment proceedings should be quashed.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices the Assessing Officer was constrained to make addition and further in absence of any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC he has rightly upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was dispatched on 31.03.2021 at 6.35 pm at the post office at Ahmednagar and further this notice was also issued on 31.03.2021 through e-mail to the assessee.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant case did not file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act nor responded to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.97,90,652/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of such cash deposits in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. We find since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 is issued after 31.03.2021 and therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law, the entire re-assessment proceedings are to be quashed. Further it is also his submission that despite asking the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons he did not supply the same which is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).

We find it is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Further, due to non-submission of any reply the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by filing the requisite details including the submissions, if any, on the issue of validity of re-assessment proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th November, 2025.