WUDSTAY TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI

Date of hearing: 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. That the appellant denies the liability to be assessed at the total income of Rs.3,19,26,300/- and accordingly denies the liability to pay tax and interest demand thereon.

2. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in assessing jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act without observing the statutory conditions as mentioned in the Section 147 to 151 of the Act.

3. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment proceedings when the jurisdictional notice purportedly issued u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law and without DIN as prescribed procedure.

4. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment proceedings when the notice and order u/s 148A were void and were not served on the assessee and more so when notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee.

5. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A ) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in time deposit.

6. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 8,52,909/- on account of interest income.

7. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 73,390/- on account of contractual receipt.

at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private Ltd. Company and did not filed the return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessing Officer received information through ITBA that the assessee purchased time deposit for Rs. 3,10,00,000/- received Rs.73,390/- as contract receipt and also received interest of Rs. 8,52,909/-. In the fact of the above proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was initiated by the Assessing Officer and notice u/s 148 A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 01-06-2022 by giving the 14 days, time to file the objection. The assessee did not file any response, even various notices issued u/s 142(1) and u/s 144 were issued but assessee failed to file any objection. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.3,10,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act Rs.8,52,909/- income on interest, and contractual receipt of RS. 73,390/- u/s 194C of the Act.

4. Aggrieved the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 02- 04-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground no.4 and stated that first notice u/s 148 was issued on 30- 06-2021 for the A.Y. 2017-18 under the old reassessment tax regime, however due to the introduction of new reassessment tax regime from 01-04-2021 and in the compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in the case of Ashish Agarwal notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 01-06-2022 and consequent order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 21-07-2022. The case of the assessee relates to the A.Y. 2017-18 and the notice /order was issued on 21-07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of relevant assessment Year, the sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the competent authority to grant the permission. This issue is squarely covered by the Judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT(Ex) WP 9031/2023 dated 28-04-2025. In the case of Dalpat Baraiya vs Income Tax officer Ward -3(3)(1) the Co-ordinate bench held that where three years had expired from the end of the Assessment year 2018-19, sanctioning authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act should have been Principal Chief Commissioner and not Principal Commissioner, thus order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 issued on basis of approval granted by Principal Commissioner were to be quashed and set aside.