ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. SATVINDER KAUR, DELHI

ITA 3185/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against Satvinder Kaur, concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The original assessment was reopened, and a new assessment order was passed, significantly increasing the assessed income. The CIT(A) found the notice to be invalid due to improper service, leading to the quashing of the assessment order. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the notice was validly issued and served. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653097 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Ltd. in ITA No.651/2015 order dt. 11.01.2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V. K. SABHARWAL; RAJIV
• Section: 147; 148; 2

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3185/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi Vs. Satvinder Kaur S-493, Greater Kailsah part-II, New Delhi PAN: AAXPK8350J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Advocate V. K. Sabharwal, Advocate Rajiv Kumar and CA S. S. Aggarwal Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Ld. CIT (A)’/NFAC for short] dated 13/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deciding the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as invalid by ignoring the fact that the present case the proceedings were initiated based on the information populated by the Department on Insight Portal. The provision of section 153C can only be initiated as and when the satisfaction note and material is shared by the assessing officer who is handling the proceedings u/s 153A. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in challenging the validity of service of notice as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 through ITBA within prescribed time limit. 2 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in stating that the approval was given without application of mind by the Range Head which is entirely incorrect and prejudicial since non application of mind cannot be inferred merely because the Range Head has given a brief opinion. This ground of appeal is submitted respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vsMeenakshi Overseas Ltd. in ITA No.651/2015 order dt. 11.01.2016. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,26,62,169/- on account undisclosed income with respect to trading in Penny Stock by ignoring the details findings made by the AO in the assessment order. Also, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction routed through YIC, which remained unverified and unexplained.” 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are that, the Assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 14,44,890/-. The case of the Assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), an assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 144B of the Act on 30/03/2022 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 3,41, 07,059/- as against returned income of Rs. 14,44,890/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01/03/2022, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13/02/2024, allowed the Appeal of the Assessee on the ground that there was no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act within the prescribed time limit. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/02/2204, the Revenue preferred the present Appeal. 3 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Appeal of the Assessee on the ground that there was no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act within the prescribed time limit. Further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021 was duly issued through ITBA to the Assessee within prescribed time limit, therefore, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, thus sought for allowing the Appeal. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021 has not been served on the Assessee either on the ITBA Portalor on Assessee’s e-mail id or physically. Further submitted that the Assessee had viewed the ITBA portal only on 5th July, 2021, therefore, it cannot be construed that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act has been served within the limitation prescribed. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said contention of the Assessee has also been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was invalid and accordingly, quashed the assessment order. Therefore submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A),sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 4 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the specific contention of the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been signed digitally by the A.O. on 31/03/2021 at 7.02PM, however, the said notice has not been served on the Assessee either on the ITBA Portalor on Assessee’s e-mail id or in physical mode. The Assessee has claimed to have viewed the ITBA Portal only on 5th July, 2021 thus, it cannot be said that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act has been duly served on the Assessee well within the limitation prescribed. The Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the said contention of the Assessee held as under:- “6.8 It is seen from record on ITBA system, that notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021, but was sent to appellant as per electronic system records only on 03.04.2021. Also the ITBA system states that on that date, it shows comments as \"email not sent\". It appears the mail was never served on the appellant as per ITBA records within the time permitted as per provisions of Income Tax Act. the delivery status of the notice u/s 148 is showing as email not sent\" \"6.78 The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021, approved on 31.03.2021 but served on appellant on 03.04.2021. The last date of issue of notice u/s 148 was 31.03.2021. Hence the notice issued is considered invalid.” 7. During the proceedings before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative sought for report from Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer replied to the Ld. Departmental Representative stating that ‘as per ITBA System the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not 5 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur sent to the Assessee via e-mail, the physical record regarding service of notice are still not traced’. Considering the above said reply by the A.O., on hearing the both the parties, we reserved the order by giving two weeks time to the Ld. Departmental Representative to file the evidence regarding service of notice if any. However, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not placed any document for proof service of valid notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to the Assessee. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) on examining the fact held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act to the Assessee dated 31/03/2021 being invalid and quashed the assessment order, in the absence of any contrary evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, finding no merits in the Grounds of appeal of the Revenue, we dismiss the Grounds of appeal of the Revenue 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 18 .06.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI 6 ITA No. 3185/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Satvinder Kaur "