SANJEEV YADAV,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of NFAC,
Delhi dated 29.01.2025 for A.Y 2016-17. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as 5 grounds of appeal, but the challenge to the service of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 [the Act, for short] for assumption of juri iction to frame order

ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
u/s 147 of the Act goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we decided to adjudicate the same first.
3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.
4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual and did not file any return of Income for AY 2016-17. The AO received an information under Risk Management strategy that the assessee has sold an immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,57,00,000/-; had received
Gross rental receipts of Rs.26,48,296/-; Gross interest receipts of Rs.17,837/- and Cash deposit of Rs.42,48,000/- in his bank account maintained with RBL Bank Limited during the financial year 2015-16
relevant to A.Υ. 2016-17. As the assessee did not file any return, reopening process was initiated vide issuance of show cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.02.2023 and passing of order u/s 148(A)(d) dated
10.03.2023 and subsequent issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 10.03.2023
after obtaining approval PCCIT, New Delhi. Ultimately, the AO, in absence of any explanation from the assessee, added Rs. 1,57,00,000/- received on sale of property; Gross rental receipts of Rs.26,48,296/-;
Gross interest receipts of Rs.17,837/- and Cash deposit of ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
Rs.42,48,000/- in his bank account, assessing the total income at Rs
2,26,14,133/- u/s 144 r.w. 147 r.w. 144B of the Act.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment u/s 144 to the AO for fresh adjudication. Further aggrieved, the assessee is before us.
6. The ld AR of the assessee before us has contended that the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.02.2023; order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer, was never received by the assessee. The said notices/order bore the address at C-9, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi whereas the correct address is D-8, House No. 7, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi. It is the say of ld AR that this address is given in the Income tax return for AY 2022-23 filed by the assessee and available in the PAN database. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that there is a juri ictional error committed by the Assessing Officer and he could not have assumed juri iction to conduct the re-assessment proceedings and pass re-assessment order without serving the notice u/s 148 of the Act.
7. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A). The ld DR pointed out to the written submissions filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), that due to financial difficulties, he forgot to file the income tax return for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 and how his CA Pramod Goel was ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
negligent in monitoring assessee’s compliance with Income Tax
Department. The ld DR further pointed out that the assessee narrated how he downloaded all the notices/assessment order/demand notice etc from the office of his newly appointed advocate P.K.Sahu. The ld DR submitted that this admission itself shows that all the notices/assessment orders etc was uploaded by the AO in ITBA portal in the e-filing account of the assessee and the assessee did not physically receive the same because of the fault of his erstwhile CA. The ld DR submitted that the there is no flaw in assumption of juri iction by the AO and the CIT(A) was correct in setting aside the matter to the AO.
8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused carefully the materials on record. We find from the written submission filed before the CIT(A) that the assessee due to some financial difficulties, forgot to file the return for AY 2016-17. The assessee engaged a CA
Pramod Goel, partner of M/s Acharya Goel & Associates, for filing RoI for AY 2019-20 onwards, and was entirely dependent on him for filing return and monitor compliance of income tax matters. The said CA first informed the assessee with regard to assessments made for AY 2016-17
but he could not download any orders/notices. The assessee thereafter approached P.K.Sahu, Advocate, who assisted the assessee to download all the notices u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 and ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
the assessment order u/s 144 and demand notice. In the said written submissions before the CIT(A), the assessee admitted that “On 21.02.2024, I realized that there was non-compliance by me with respect to many notices issued by the Income Tax Department for A.Y. 2016-17. This was due to my dependence on CA Promod Goel.
Since he stated to me that he could not download the documents from the website, I requested him to give a certificate that the delay in compliance has been on account of his office not being able to access and download notices and order. However, to my disbelief, he refused to give such a certificate”.
9. With such an admission, there is no scope for sustaining the ground of wrongful assumption of juri iction on account of non-receipt of notice u/s 148. We find, and the assessee himself admitted the fact before the CIT(A) that he had engaged a CA to monitor compliance of all the communications in his account of the Income tax Department website. The assessee had entrusted the CA to bring the notices u/s 148
in the knowledge of the assessee and to initiate compliance. With these facts, once all the requisite notices/orders are uploaded in the e-filing
ITBA portal in assessee’s account, the assessee plea that the notice u/s 148 was not served on him, cannot be sustained. The assessee cannot blame his CA for inefficiency and at the same time blame the ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
Department for not serving the notice u/s 148. Further, we find from the same written submission of the assessee filed before the CIT(A), the address C-9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, where the notice were physically despatched, was address of his parents. In these factual matrix of the instant case, we find that the AO not only issued/served notices u/s 148 in the ITBA portal of the assessee but also physically issued and served the notices to the assessee’s parents house. In the instant case, the AO not only uploaded the notice on the ITBA portal, he shared the notice on E-mail sac.icai@gmail.com and also sent the notice through speed post to the parent house. But for the negligence/fault of the CA of the assessee, who was appointed to monitor compliance with Income Tax Department, the said notices were not viewed by the assessee on ITBA portal. Thus, the averment that the AO did not serve any notice u/s 148 to him, stands rejected. We are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO
(2022) 449 ITR 517 290 Taxman 493 (Delhi)(HC) which recognized the service of notice u/s 148 through ITBA portal. We also are fortified by the decision of the hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Carry
Co, Prop: Mr. Kajal Kumar Garai Versus Union of India & ors. - 2025
(6) TMI 1000 where it held that service of order by uploading on the GST portal constitutes valid service. Ground 1 to 5 is accordingly dismissed.

ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
10. We are further of the considered view that the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC in setting aside the assessment to the file of the AO, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be interfered with. In order to uphold the principles of natural justice, we endorse the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC in invoking his statutory powers u/s 251(1)(a) to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making fresh assessment as the reassessment was made ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act.
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal
BCU
Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT(Exemptions) 463 ITR 560 wherein the Hon'ble
High Court questioned the validity of service of notice through ITBA portal but at the same time, to uphold the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. Similar stand was taken by the coordinate bench of Pune ITAT in the case of Shree
Vyagreshwar Kulswami Pariwar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Exemption) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 615 (Pune - Trib.)[29-07-2024].

ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17]
The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025. [MADHUMITA ROY]

[NAVEEN CHANDRA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 27th October, 2025. VL/