Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -03, New Delhi vs. Solutrean Building Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

…r before us in not rebutting this clinching factual position during the course of hearing. 3. We are of the considered view in this backdrop that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in recent landmark decision Suman Jeet Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer [2022] 449 ITR 517(Del) has settled the issue that not only such a notice u/s 148 could be treated as issued only after due dispatch but also the new regime kicks in on after issuance of all such notices as on 01.04.2021 and thereafter. That being the case, we find force in assessee’s vehement contentions to conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 03, New Delhi vs. Solutrean Building Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

…r before us in not rebutting this clinching factual position during the course of hearing. 3. We are of the considered view in this backdrop that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in recent landmark decision Suman Jeet Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer [2022] 449 ITR 517(Del) has settled the issue that not only such a notice u/s 148 could be treated as issued only after due dispatch but also the new regime kicks in on after issuance of all such notices as on 01.04.2021 and thereafter. That being the case, we find force in assessee’s vehement contentions to conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred…

Solutrean Building Technologies Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-23(2), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

…r before us in not rebutting this clinching factual position during the course of hearing. 3. We are of the considered view in this backdrop that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in recent landmark decision Suman Jeet Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer [2022] 449 ITR 517(Del) has settled the issue that not only such a notice u/s 148 could be treated as issued only after due dispatch but also the new regime kicks in on after issuance of all such notices as on 01.04.2021 and thereafter. That being the case, we find force in assessee’s vehement contentions to conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred…

Sga Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

…er u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.03.2022 cannot be held as valid and permissible in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of SumanJeet Agarwal Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 517(Del) and ITAT decision in case of Aseem Sehegal ITA 154- 156/Del/2025 dated 30.07.2025. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that provisions of section 292BB apply in the case of defects in the notice. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. W…

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…gs – the same has not been complied with in the present case. The notices dated March 2021 (qua A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2017-18) are shown on the portal but were actually served on 25 June 2021. As held by the Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO, (2022) 449 ITR 517, a notice uploaded to the ITBA portal is not deemed “issued” at the time of generation but only when it is viewed or served in fact. The portal timestamp is therefore not determinative. According to the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) (viewed as binding and operative from 4.05.2022), any notice under Secti…

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…gs – the same has not been complied with in the present case. The notices dated March 2021 (qua A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2017-18) are shown on the portal but were actually served on 25 June 2021. As held by the Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO, (2022) 449 ITR 517, a notice uploaded to the ITBA portal is not deemed “issued” at the time of generation but only when it is viewed or served in fact. The portal timestamp is therefore not determinative. According to the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) (viewed as binding and operative from 4.05.2022), any notice under Secti…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation- 2, New Delhi vs. Hyundai Rotem Company

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…tted that the terms “Receipt”, “Issue”, “Pass”, “Service” of notice/order have been explained by Supreme Court and this Court in various judgments. In support of this submission, he has relied upon Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income-Tax Officer And Others [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi), M/s M.M Rubber and co., Tamil Nadu (supra),. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (supra) and R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 3 Supreme Court Cases 96.The language of Section 144C (13) Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 10 of 46…

Sanjeev Yadav, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

…t, 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 cons…

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

…t that the reassessment action would not sustain. 6. Dealing with an identical question, we had in Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors held as under:- “30. Tested on the principles which were enunciated in SumanJeet Agarwal v. ITO [(2022) 449 ITR 517 (Delhi); 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3141], the petitioners would appear to be correct in their submission of the date liable to be ascribed to the impugned notices and those being viewed as having been issued and dispatched after April 1, 2021. However, and in our considered opinion, the same would be of little relevance or significance when one bears i…

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

…t that the reassessment action would not sustain. 6. Dealing with an identical question, we had in Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors held as under:- “30. Tested on the principles which were enunciated in SumanJeet Agarwal v. ITO [(2022) 449 ITR 517 (Delhi); 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3141], the petitioners would appear to be correct in their submission of the date liable to be ascribed to the impugned notices and those being viewed as having been issued and dispatched after April 1, 2021. However, and in our considered opinion, the same would be of little relevance or significance when one bears i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

…e judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional high Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del.) and in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anors. Reported in [2025] 4 TMI 46 (Delhi). The assessee further filed details written submissions wherein the assessee has relied upon various other judgments also on this issue. The written submission is reproduced as under: “1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue pertain…

Deputy CIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Santosh Hospitals Private Limited, No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

…IT(A) finally concluded that since the notice was validly issued after 01.04.2021 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sumanjeet Agarwal vs. ITO (449 ITR 517) such notices will be construed as issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and the AO was required to follow the procedure if the notice was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act and moreover the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sumanjeet Agarwal (supra) had held that the notice issued on or after 01.04.2021 would be time barred unless saved by the judgment…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 6044/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 A-66, Sector-63, Noida- Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcr9285F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Virsain Agarwal, Adv& Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025

…1 ITA No. 6044/Del/2024 DCIT Vs. RBA Buildtech Pvt. Ld. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6044/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs RBA Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 A-66, Sector-63, Noida- Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AAGCR9285F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Virsain Agarwal, Adv& Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv Revenue by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR,…