HARNISH KUMAR GOEL,FARIDABAD V. WARD NO. 1(3), FARIDABAD

ITA 7580/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the reassessment order, arguing that the reopening proceedings were invalid, the jurisdiction was improperly assumed, and the additions made were based on unverified and unsupported claims. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s decision did not adequately address the assessee's grounds and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841049 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEPARTMENTAL ERRORS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Borrowed satisfaction; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7580/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19 Assessee None Respondent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 26.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2018- 19 in sustaining the addition made by the AO. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B without appreciating that the entire reopening proceedings initiated through notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 were bad in law, contrary to the amended provisions applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Harnish Kumar Goel, 565, Sector-22, Faridabad -121002 PAN No.AINPG5558Q Vs Ward No.1 (3) Faridabad Assessee Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as copy of prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151 was never provided to the assesse in respect of the reopening proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and in dismissing the appellant's grounds challenging reopening by misinterpreting section 246A (1) (b) and holding that validity of notice u/s 148A (b) and order u/s 148A (d) cannot be challenged in appeal, which is perverse, contrary to law and violative of natural justice. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (А) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed uw/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the assumption ofjurisdiction u/s 147/148 is bad in law as the Ld. AO failed to conduct any independent enquiry on the information received from the Investigation Wing and mechanically relied on third- party material without establishing a live nexus between the alleged accommodation entry provider \"Star International\" and the appellant. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the entire addition is vitiated because no adverse material, statements, investigation reports or incriminating evidence relied upon by the AO/CIT (A) were ever confronted to the appellant, and no cross- examination was provided. The order is therefore in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as branding \"Star International\" as a bogus entity is baseless, unverified and unsupported by corroborative evidence. No material has been brought on record to connect the appellant with any alleged accommodation entry activity. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) erred in treating genuine sales of ₹29,66,661/-, duly recorded in books and supported by quantitative details, as bogus without pointing out any defect in trading results, invoices, stock records or books of account. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the addition of Rs.29,66,661/- u/s 68 as \"bogus sales\" is illegal and results in double taxation since the same already forms part of turnover and declared profit. Without examination of books, such addition is unjustified. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the assessment has been framed without examining books of account, stock register or supporting documents, and is based purely on assumptions, suspicion and surmises, rendering it unsustainable. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding incorrect vehicle numbers is factually wrong, as correct details were duly furnished by the appellant; the authorities themselves verified incorrect numbers. The appellant cannot be penalized for departmental errors. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B as the allegation that the appellant paid cash to Star International for obtaining accommodation entries is wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B has no adverse inference can be drawn merely because Star International did not respond to notice u/s 133(6) or because the appellant sought adjournments, particularly when no evidence indicates bogus sales or accommodation entries. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the L.d. AO has wrongly presumed commission income or accommodation entry activity without any corroborative material. The addition is based on conjectures and surmises, contrary to settled law. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as when the AO accepted the overall trading results and pointed out no defects therein, treating only one customer's sales as bogus is arbitrary, inconsistent and against commercial principles and without verification. 15. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the information received from the Investigation Wing was accepted as truth without verification or confronting the appellant. This renders the reopening as well as the addition untenable in law which is on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as adequate opportunity was not granted either by the AO or the CIT (A). The replies, explanations and objections filed by the appellant were not considered in entirety. The assessment was finalized in undue haste, violating natural justice and CBDT instructions. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 17. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the appellant denies liability to be assessed at 35,87.418/- as against the returned income of ₹6,59,590/-, and the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is unjustified, excessive and arbitrary. 18. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the findings in para 4.1 of the assessment order and para 6.4 of the CIT (A)'s order is factually incorrect, perverse and based on misinterpretation of law, resulting in confirmation of unsustainable additions. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B has no valid notice u/s 143(2) was issued within the statutory period as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The notice issued was beyond limitation and therefore the assessment is void ab initio. 20. That the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO erred in mechanically accepting the Investigation Wing's conclusion that \"Star International is a proven bogus entity/paper entity with a suspicious bank account\" without conducting independent enquiry or confronting such material to the appellant. No corroborative evidence was brought to show that the appellant was involved in any accommodation entry activity. Reliance on unverified third-party conclusions renders the reopening and addition bad in law. 21. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 not in accordance with law and in passing the impugned reassessment order based on presumptions, conjectures, surmises and whims. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 22. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the reassessment' order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as in para 4.1, the AO treated sales of Rs.29,66,661/- as bogus, whereas no other trading results were found defective which will result in profit enhancement by a sum of Rs.29,66,661.00 instead of Rs.38,863/- only. The Ld. AO treated the sales of Rs.29,66,661.00 is bogus is not in accordance with the settled principles of accounts and law. 3. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) it is noticed that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are very cryptic and completely based on the findings given by the AO. The contention raised by the assessee on several grounds were not at all dealt with and therefore, in the interest of justice the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2026. Sd/- [C.N. PRASAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "