JATINDER PAL SINGH,AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(1) AMRITASAR, AMRITSAR

ITA 315/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jatinderpal Singh, the appellant, contesting the reassessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Amritsar, for the assessment year 2014-15. The reassessment was based on alleged undisclosed investments in immovable property amounting to Rs. 83.92 lakhs. The primary legal contention revolved around the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order, which the appellant argued were not in compliance with the procedural requirements set by recent Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation and application of section 148A, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, which was applicable to the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847167 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Amritsar
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mon Mohan Kohli vs ACIT, Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs U.O.I & Others, Bpip Infra Private Limited vs ITO, M/S ARIHANT PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) LTD. vs U.O.I., UOI vs Ashis Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Jatinderpal Singh 9-Jujhar Singh Avenue, Amritsar-1430001, Punjab [PAN: FBNPS 3938E] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Amritsar 143001, Punjab (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Rishi Mahajan, C.A. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 18.02.2026 23.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 21.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the NeFAC, New Delhi dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 “1. That the order of Worthy CIT(Appeals) is arbitrary and contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be quashed. 2. That the Worthy CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and unlawful in making addition of Rs.83,92,500/- on Account of treating above amount as undisclosed investment. 3. That the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 has been a matter of conflict where compliance of section 148A/opportunity of being heard has been demanded by the various assessees in various High Court. Judgements in favour of assessee has been given by various Honorable High courts (Delhi in case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs ACIT Calcultta in case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Others, Rajasthan in case of Bpip Infra Private Limited vs ITO and Allahabad in case of M/S ARIHANT PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) LTD. Vs U.O.I.) till 31.03.2022 which has been quoted by the assesse in his reply dated 03-02- 2022 and 16-04-2022. Passing an order which is against judgement passed by Various Honorable High Court of India is violation of the law. 4. That Honorable Supreme Court by judgement by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna has validated the notice issued u/s 148 by considering the same to be issued as notice u/s 148A (new provision) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2021 on 04-05-2022 but first proviso to Section 149 does not validate the notice issued for Α.Υ. 2014-15. 5. That further compliance in regard to section 148A is still pending as per landmark Supreme Court Judgement dated 04-05-2022 having diary no. 32623 2021 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna. As per the decision, the A.O. has to supply assessee the information on which is has relied upon for the issuance of such notice within 30 days of the judgement, for which assesse has to reply within 2 weeks from the date of information. Considering which A.O. will pass order u/s 148A(d). Therefore, as compliance 148A is pending, notice u/s 148 and order u/s 144 with respect to 147 dated 31.12.2022 shown on portal on 19.04.2022 is bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 6. That the notice & SCN dated 22.03.2022 provided date of hearing on 25.03.2022 i.e. providing just 3 days for constructing and submitting reply in more than 7 years old case. This is against principle of nature justice to provide reasonable time to submit the reply. The same has been confirmed vide Judgement by High Court of New Delhi in the order dated 12-05-2022 by Hon'ble Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma in case of Shri Sai Co-Operative Thrift And Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO vide writ petition no. W.P.(C) 7385/2022 and Judgement by High Court of Delhi in the order dated 29- 04-2022 by Hon'ble Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma in case of Rahul Biala Vs ITO vide writ petition no. W.P.(C) 6038/2022 & C.M.No.18125/2022. 7. Furthermore, this is to bring to your kind notice that the assesse has registered his mail id [e-mail] on the income tax portal whereas no notice has been delivery to that mail. The notice has been shown as delivered to some 3rd party mail [e-mail] which does not belong to assesse and the assesee has never used this mail. And due to this reason the assesse has been filing delayed reply. Non proper service of notice does not result in valid assessment. The same has been confirmed vide Judgement by High Court of Bombay in the order dated 08-07-2019 by Hon'ble Akil Kureshi & S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs Union of India & ors. vide writ petition no. 513 of 2019. in case 8. That Ld. A. O. has not considered the source of payment of Rs 83,92,500/-, which was in fact \"Loan Taken from Bank\", which may be explained if the opportunity of being heard will be provided. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw and ground of appeal or new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the on the basis of information gathered by the AO that the assessee has invested in immovable property amounting to Rs. 83.92 lakhs during the FY 2013-14 (relevant to the Asst year 2014-15 under Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 appeal), and in absence of any regular return on record, proceedings has been initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 30th June, 2021 (under extended period of TOLA), and in absence of any response to subsequent notices issued by the AO, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 147 rws 144 vide order dated 31/03/2022 . 4. Before the first appellate authority the assessee has raised legal and factual grounds, that the proceedings in this case was supposed to have been carried out as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme court as laid down in the case of UOI vs Ashis Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64( SC )order dated 4th May, 2022 , by issuing fresh notice u/s 148A of the Act , within the stipulated timeframe, and only after following the procedure laid down as per new regime, and consequently the exparte assessment order dated 31/03/2022 passed u/s 144/ 147, is legally not valid , but the Ld first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the legal grounds on merits of the case , due to the reasons of non-compliance by the assessee in response to notices issued by the Ld. CIT ( A ) on four separate occasions ( as per details contained in para – 4 of the appeal order ) . 5. Now before the tribunal the assessee has raised legal and factual grounds and the Ld. AR in course of hearing submitted that no opportunity of hearing was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in as much no notice has been issued in the email id as registered in the portal “[e-mail]” and instead notices has been wrongly issued to Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 a third party mail [e-mail] , which is not connected to the assessee, resulting in non-representation by the assessee. 6. He further submitted before us a copy of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 29th July, 2022, where a factual finding has been given by the AO, that it is not a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 because three years has already elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and the quantum of transaction under consideration is also less than Rs. 50 lakhs (the assessee being 50% co-owner in the said property). 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has cancelled the reassessment order u/s 144/ 147 , dated 31st March, 2022, in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of UOI vs Ashis Agarwal ( supra ), and as such the Ld CIT(A) vide his appellate order dated 21/02/2025 , was not legally justified in upholding the reassessment order dated 31/03/2022, without considering the materials on record when the assessment order dated 31/03/2022, against which the appeal has been preferred does not legally exist. 8. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. first appellate authority. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials filed before us by the assessee, and we are of the opinion that the reassessment order passed on 31/03/2022, u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, will cease to exist after the Hon’ble Apex court judgment in the case of UOI vs Ashis Agarwal ( supra ), and the materials and Printed from counselvise.com 6 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 information as per direction of the Hon’ble court has been forwarded to the assessee u/s 148A(b), against which representation has been filed by the assessee, upon consideration of which, the order passed by the AO u/s 148A(d) dated 29/07/2022 (with prior approval of higher authorities) has arrived at a conclusion that it is not a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 and the proceedings seems to have been dropped. 10. As such we are of the opinion that the order of the Ld. first appellate authority dated 21st February, 2025, upholding the reassessment order dated 31/03/2022, is legally not valid because the order of the AO, appealed against, dated 31/03/2022, itself does not survive. 11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 330/ASR/2025 for Asstt. Year: 2014-15: 12. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this is a duplicate appeal filed by the assessee against the same appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 21/02/2025, which is arising out of the same reassessment order dated 31/03/2022, for the same year, in respect of the same proceedings, which being inadvertently filed, may be treated as “withdrawn”. Printed from counselvise.com 7 I.T.A. Nos. 315 & 330/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 315/Asr/2025 is allowed and the appeal in ITA No. 330/Asr/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 23.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "