AAKANKSHA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI
ITA No.2763/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2763/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2017-18
AAKANKSHA GUPTA,
C/o CA Vaibhav Goel,
78, Navyug Market, 1st Floor,
Ghazaibad, Uttar Pradesh.
PAN No.AMHPG9430D
बनाम
Vs.
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
Ward 69(1),
New Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Shri Vaibhav Goel, CA
Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
10.12.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 10.12.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. The present appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), order dated 17.02.2025
passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO passed an ex parteorder dated 26.03.2022, through which an addition of Rs.72,99,800/- was made by computing short term capital gain on sale of property.
1.1
The assessee, thereafter, approached the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee is seen to have taken grounds of appeal which challenge the very assumption of juri iction by the Ld. AO. Briefly, the assessee
2
contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was never served on the assessee since an old e-mail, which was not in use, was used to send the requisite notices. The assessee also challenged the non-supply of reasons for reopening, and also on the ground that the new procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act was not complied with by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have dismissed the grounds pertaining to these issues in pages 8 to 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the grounds pertaining to the impugned additions.
1.2
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
1. “That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the evidences and submissions made by the appellant.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in denying the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of new additional floors constructed by the appellant.
3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Ld AO and upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings despite the fact that Ld JAO had not validly assumed juri iction without issuance and service of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
within the limitation period prescribed u/s 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
That, mere uploading of notice at e-filing portal and sending email at old/unconnected email address (sid.aks2Q08@gmail.com) does not amount to valid issuance of notice;
3.1
That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment proceedings despite being barred by limitation;
That, the first notice to be received by the appellant qua the AY was dated
15.03.2022 when the provisions of section 147 (prior to amendment brought by Finance Act, 202-21) had ceased to exist;
4. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining there-assessment proceedings initiated based on mechanical approval by the specifiedauthority; That, the specified authority failed to take cognizance of-
3
- approval was sought u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was not existing as on 23.03.2021;
- the amount of aggregate sale consideration recorded in reasons to believe was Rs.77 lacs without specifying the particulars like address of the property sold, name of the buyer, dates of transaction etc or supplying the basis of such information in the possession of the AO;
- the fact that sale consideration on transfer of capital asset does not represent ’income’ and thus, without quantification or determination of amount of capital gains, valid juri iction cannot be assumed;
That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the validity of reassessment order despite non-issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to Ground No 1 to 5, 6. Because, the notice u/s 148 was never served and received, hence in the absence ofany valid notice in terms of s.148/149/153, assessment is void ab initio and subsequent proceedings are illegal. 7. Because, notice u/s 148 is illegal being admittedly without supplying reason to believe with notice or within the period of limitation or even till the completion of assessment (reasons were specifically asked after complying with the notice u/s 148), hence such unilateral proceedings are against the settled law and order is illegal. 8. Because, notice u/s 148 is issued without any application of mind/ satisfaction of Id, AO/ approving authority about escapement of income, the reasons were recorded without anyauthentic material and copy of documents, even the amount of sale of immovable properties recorded in the reasons is not correct, such mechanical recording of reasons and approval just to conduct roving enquiries is beyond the scope of provisions ofS.147/148/151, hence the same is beyond juri iction and proceedings/order are illegal. 9. Because, the procedure as laid down in Section 144B was not complied with, therefore the assessment is bad in law and not sustainable. 10. Because, ITR was filed u/s 139(1) and in response to notice u/s 148, but no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and order was passed, hence such assessment is bad in law and may kindly be quashed. 11. Because, learned AO further erred in not conducting any meaningful direct/indirect enquiry/query in relation to the replies and documents submitted during the assessment proceedings and addition is made hurriedly/summarily without raising any query on the furnished documents/information and passing a non-speaking order. 12. Because, assessment is completed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 in spite of complying with all the notices and providing all the required documents/information as asked by the Ld. AO, hence such an arbitrary order is bad in law, against the principle of natural justice and illegal. 13. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and hence is unsustainable. 14. Because, without prejudice and dilution to above grounds, only as an alternative on merits, Id. AO failed to appreciate the fact on record that the 4
assessee is entitled to claim the cost of acquisition and improvement while computing long term capital gain and assessee is also entitled for the deduction u/s 54, but instead of verifying the claim, the same is not considered and addition of Rs.72,99,800/- is made hurriedly, hence addition is arbitrary.
15. Therefore, it is prayed that the notice/order under question may kindly be quashed. However, as an alternative it is also prayed that the addition of Rs.72,99,800 may be quashed.
16. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at any time of the hearing of the Appeal.”
Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of substantial documents through several paper books. The Ld. AR pointed out that it was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that e-mail id: .aks2008@gamil.comwas not an operational e-mail of the assessee even when valid contact details were duly available in the PAN Data base, bank accounts, Income tax returns,etc.It was pointed out that the e-mail id:ag29101081@gmail.com was being used for all official purposes and even the Income tax returns have been filed indicating this very e-mail id. The Ld. AR took pains to point out (page 45 of the PB) that in the return of income also in the place where e-mail address is to be mentioned there the latest e-mail address is mentioned and not the one on which the Ld. AO was sending notices. The Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this ground by stating that even the old e-mail belongs to the assessee and she could access the same as the notices sent on that e-mail where subsequently available with her. To emphasize this point further the Ld. AR also pointed out that vide their reply dated 21.03.2022 the Ld. AO was duly informed about the non-service of notice u/s 148 since it was sent on an old non-operational e-mail address (page 63 of the Paper 5
Book). Thereafter the Ld. AR also argued that there was another juri ictional issue which needed to be considered and that was that the proceedings were initiated under the old regime (existing prior to the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021) and not the new regime. It was pointed out that this ground was also before the Ld.
CIT(A) but he did not deal with the issues in an appropriate manner (Para
5.4.1 on page 11 of the impugned order was pointed out).
2.1
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully perused the contents of several paper books filed by the assessee and also the case laws relied upon. The facts of this case have already been mentioned earlier, suffice it to say that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was admittedly issued on an e-mail address which was not in use. It is also an admitted fact that that the assessee had used all manner of platforms
(PAN, Data base, ITAT returns, etc.) to enable the IT Department to have the updated the e-mail address of the assessee. Thus, it is clear that a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served on the assessee and hence the consequential proceedings would be bad in law. The two cases relied upon by the assessee also deserve to be mentioned in some detail. In the case of Sumanjeet Aggarwal reported in 449 ITR 517 (Del.) the head note may be extracted for reference:
6
“Section 149 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
and section 13 of the Information technology Act, 2000 - Income escaping assessment - Time limit for issuance of notice (Validity of notice) - Assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 - Sections 147, 148,
149 and 151 were amended vide Finance Act of 2021, with effect from 1-4-2021 - Since there was a regime change with respect to law of limitation coming into effect from 1-4-2021, which curtailed time limit for reopening of assessment from 6 years to 3
years, revenue, with a view to avail limitation prescribed under un-amended section 149, generated reassessment notices under section 148 dated 31-3-2021, but same were despatched on or after 1-4-2021 - Assessee challenged validity of notices issued under section 148 - Whether function of generation of notice on ITBA portal and digital signing of notice is executed by Assessing
Officer while function of drafting of e-mail to which notice is attached and triggering e-mail to assessee is performed by ITBA e- mail software system - Held, yes - Whether thus, mere generation of notice under section 148 on ITBA software cannot in fact or in law constitute issue of notice, it is only upon due despatch that notice can be said to have been 'issued' - Held, yes - Whether
'despatch' as per section 13 of Act of 2000 is sine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronic mail for purpose of section 149 - Held, yes - Whether in case of paper form, notice must be despatched by post on or before 31-3-2021 and for communication in electronic form e-mail should have been despatched on or before 31-3-2021 - Held, yes - Whether since in instant case, dispatch of notice by post and e-mail was carried out on or after
1-4-2021, it was to be held that, impugned notice dated 31-3-2021
would not meet test of 'issued' under section 149 and would be time barred - Held, ye [Paras 25.12, 25.13, 25.23 and 26] [Partly in favour of assessee]
Section 148 read with section 149. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
Income escaping assessment - Issue c notice for (Date of notice) -
Whether while issuing notice under section 148, date of issue of notice is no important, it is date of signing notice which is important - Held, yes - Whether where notice was dated 31 3-2021
but had been digitally signed on 1-4-2021, date of notice will be 1-
4-2021 - Held, yes [Paras 25.5 am 31.1] [Partly in favour of assessee]
Section 282 read with sections 148 and 149 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 - Service of notice - Genera (Validity of) - Whether where notices under section 148 are sent through registered e-mail ID of respective Assessing Officers, though not digitally signed, it will be held to be valid service of notice - Held, yes Whether however, date and time of dispatch as recorded in ITBA portal will be taken as date of issuance o notice in this regard - Held, yes [Para 31.2]
[Partly in favour of assessee]
7
Section 282 read with sections 148 and 149. of the Income-tax Act,
1961 - Service of notice - Genera (Validity of) - Whether where notices under section 148 were only uploaded in E-filing portal of assessee: without any real time alert, date and time when assessees viewed notices in E-filing portal, as recorded ii ITBA portal will be construed as date of service of notice - Held, yes
[Para 31.4] [Partly in favour of assessee]
Section 148 read with section 149. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
Income escaping assessment - Issue o notice for (Manual dispatch of notice) - Whether where notices under section 148 were manually despatched, date and time when notices were delivered to post office for dispatch was to be construed a: date of issuance of notice - Held, yes [Para 31.5] [Partly in favour of assessee]
Section 148 read with section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
Income escaping assessment - Issue o notice for (Notices to unrelated e-mail addresses) - Whether where notices were sent to unrelated e-mail addresses, date on which notice was first viewed by assessee on E-filing portal was to be construed as date of issuance of notice - Held, yes [Para 31.6] [Partly in favour of assessee]”
Furthermore, the second case relied upon by the assessee of L.K.
Developers reported in 455 ITR 399 (Bom.), the head notes may be extracted for reference:
“Section 282, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961
and rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Service of notice -
General (Primary email id) - Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17
and 2017-18 – Whether email address available in income tax return furnished by assessee to which communication relates or email address available in last income tax return furnished by assessee would be primary email id for issuance of notice under section 148 - Held, yes - Whether a secondary email address has to be used as alternative or in circumstances, where authority is unable to effect service of any communication primary address -
Held, yes - Whether Assessing Officer ought to have sent notice to both primary address and email address mentioned in last return of income filed to preempt a juri ictional error on account of valid service - Held, yes - Whether where assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year 2020-21 and email id mentioned therein was Ioktax2016@rediffmail.com, Assessing
Officer ought to have considered this email as primary email id and not issued notice on email id mentioned in return of income for assessment year 2013-14 - Held, yes - Whether thus, where
Assessing Officer issued a notice on secondary email address when
8
there was a primary email address available, there was nothing wrong with assessee's refusal to participate in proceeding vitiated by valid service of notice - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee] "
A combined reading of the two case laws makes it clear that for the assumption of juri iction a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act has to be issued and served on the assessee within the time prescribed under the Act. In this case clearly the notice has not been served on the assessee and therefore the subsequent proceedings are vitiated. Accordingly, the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is struck down.
3.1
Since the assessee has succeeded on the ground of improper or even absence of, service of notice u/s 148, the remaining grounds are not adjudicated.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025 (MAHAVIR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 15.12.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.