DEEVIK GARG,DELHI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-38(1), DELHI

ITA 6063/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Deevik Garg against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary grievances included the lack of adequate opportunity to be heard, the ex-parte nature of the appeal decision, and various procedural and substantive issues related to notices and additions made under sections 148, 148A(b), and 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee and decided to restore the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841717 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Multiplan India Limited 38 ITD 320 (Del), Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Invalid notice; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"6063_DEL_2025_Deevik Garg 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6063/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deevik Garg B-23, Industrial Area, Lawrence Road, Delhi- 35 Vs ACIT Circle-38(1) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADRPG2815M Assessee Represented by: Shri Anshu Goel, CA Revenue/Department Represented by: Shri Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.07.2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of Ld. CIT (A) is against the law, facts, principles of natural justice and all other principles and rules of law and therefore liable to be set aside. 2. That Ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of Ld. Income Tax Faceless Assessing Officer without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard which is bad in law, contrary to facts, provision of law and against the principles of natural justice as such deserves to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 6063_DEL_2025_Deevik Garg 2 | P a g e 3. That Ld CIT(A) is not justified in passing an ex-parte appeal order on the basis of Multiplan India Limited 38 ITD 320 (Del) and not decided the appeal on merits The action of Ld CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and provisions of law, as such CIT(A) order liable to be deleted. 4. That the Notice U/s 148A(b) issued by Ld AO is bad in law in so far as it is based on material discretely collected by the Investigation Wing and mechanically relied upon by Ld AO without verifying the credibility of information which was blatantly in contrary to information available on record in Income Tax Return. As such the notice U/s 148A(b) is without jurisdiction and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. That the Notice U/s 148/148A(b) issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is without jurisdiction, bad in law, contrary to provisions of law and judgements of courts. As such the notice U/s 148/148A(b) is invalid being without jurisdiction and consequent assessment order based on such invalid notice is liable to be quashed 6. That the Notice U/s 148A(b) and consequent order U/s 148A(d) is time barred, without jurisdiction, bad in law, contrary to provisions of law and material available on record, judgments of courts in so far as it is passed without providing copy of information/documents relied upon which is against CBDT Circulars and provisions of Sec 148A. As such the notice U/s 148A(b) and order U/s 148A(d) is without jurisdiction and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 7. That the notice U/s 148, consequent proceedings and order of Ld. AO U/s 148A(d) is contrary to provisions of Sec 148A/149 and 151, time barred, without jurisdiction, bad in law, contrary to facts, provision of law, and against the principles of natural justice and judgments of courts as such deserves to be quashed. 8. That the notice issued by Ld. AO U/s 148A(b), 148 and consequent order Uls 148A(d) is based on incorrect facts and premises and erroneous reasons recorded by Ld. AO and arbitrarily and perversely approved by PCIT, Delhi that Fictitious Long Term Capital Gain transaction entered by assessee amounting to Rs. 1,52,57,000/- which is contrary to facts born on record as assessee has not entered into any long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,52,57,000/-. As such the notice is on the basis of non-existing and factually incorrect reasons is liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 6063_DEL_2025_Deevik Garg 3 | P a g e 9. That the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an addition of Rs. 53,00,000/- U/s 68 as accommodation entry on the basis of presumption and assumption, contrary to facts born on assessment records as such is based on surmises and conjectures, and is against the provision of law and against the principles of natural justice. As such the addition of Rs. 53,00,000 so made by Ld. AO and confirmed by CIT(A) needs to be deleted. 10. That the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an addition of Rs. 46,57,000 solely relying on various information received from Investigation Wing as well as statement of deponents discretely recorded by Investigation Wing behind the back of the assessee and not recorded by Ld AO that too without providing opportunity of cross examination to assessee which is contrary to provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice and ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) As such the action of Ld. AO needs to be undone and addition of Rs. 46,57,000/-made by him needs to be deleted. 11. That the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an addition of Rs. 46,57,000/- U/s 68 as unaccounted income in bogus penny stock which is not supported by any tangible evidence and is based on surmises and conjectures, and is against the facts and provision of law and against the principles of natural justice. As such the addition of Rs 46,57,000 so made by Ld. AO needs to be deleted. 12. That the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of Ld AO in making an addition of Rs. 46,57,000/- U/s 68 as unaccounted income by considering the sale of shares of Yamini Investment Ltd. on listed stock exchange without appreciating the fact in bogus penny stock which is not supported by any tangible evidence and is based on surmises and conjectures, and is against the provision of law and against the principles of natural justice. As such the addition of Rs. 46,57,000 so made by Ld. AO needs to be deleted. 13. That Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in charging tax at special rate u/s. 115BBE which is arbitrary and contrary to facts and provisions of law. 14. That Ld. AO is not justified in charging interest U/s 234B, 234D of the Income Tax Act which is contrary to facts borne on record and provisions of law. As such interest levied by Ld. AO U/s 234B, 234D needs to be deleted Printed from counselvise.com 6063_DEL_2025_Deevik Garg 4 | P a g e 15. That on the facts and circumstances the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is misconceived on facts and in law and liable to be filed. 16. That the appellant craves right to amend, add, delete or withdraw any of the ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee had failed to make any compliance to the notices issued by him. After hearing both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25. 02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "