K L VEGETABLE OIL PRDUCTS PVT LTD,C/O B K KAPUR AND COMPANY V. ACIT,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3892/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a batch of forty appeals related to various assessees, primarily members of the Agarwal family and KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd., against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Noida. The appeals were primarily concerned with the validity of assessments made under section 143(3) and section 148B following a search operation on 02.06.2022. The Tribunal examined whether the assessments should have been made under section 148 read with section 147, and whether the approvals for the assessments were valid. The Tribunal found that the necessary approvals under section 148B were not properly granted, leading to the quashing of the assessments for the specified years.

• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC Limited v/s CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB), PCIT v. Siddarth Gupta (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All), ACIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC), PCIT v/s Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxmann.com 2 (Delhi), Montage Enterprise (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (2026) 182 taxmann.com 11 (Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAPOOR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRISATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIM. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4143/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Vs. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Khurja Peach, Garh Road, Hapur Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACBPA6913B ITA No. 3879/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vijay Kumar Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACBPA6913B ITA No. 3881/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Manish Kumar Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANPA4702G ITA No. 3880/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Manish Kumar Agarwal, (legal heir of Late Shri Virendra Kumar Agarwal) 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANPA4702G Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 4095/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, 3-1/1, Khurja Peach, Garh Road, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKYPA2865R ITA No. 3891/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKYPA2865R ITA Nos. 3892 to 3900/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2022-23) KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACK5476F ITA No. 3901/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Rajiv Kumar Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AALPA8448B ITA No. 3902/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sonika Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFJPA7992D Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 4109/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) ACIT, Ghaziabad Vs. Sonika Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFJPA7992D ITA No. 3903/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shammi Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANPA4696D ITA No. 4107/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2022-23) DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Vs. Shammi Agarwal, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: PAN: AANPA4696D ITA Nos.3913 to 3921 & 3925/Del/2025 (Assessment Years:2014-15 to 2022-23) J. K. Trading Company, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AABFR3889B ITA No. 4087/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT, Central Circle Ghaziabad Vs. Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, Prakash Nagar, Railway Road, Hapur, SUP (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:ABAPA2739B Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Adv Shri MadhavKapur, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 25/03/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/03/2026 O R D E R PERBENCH: 1. The instant batch of forty cases involves nine assessee and the relevant details thereof stand tabulated as follows:- Sr. No. ITA No. /AY Appellant Respondent Order appealed against Proceedin gs under section 1 4143/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Vijay Kumar Agarwal CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 2 3879/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Vijay Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 3 3881/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Manish Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3)/147 4 3880/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Manish Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 14.06.2025 143(3)/147 5 4095/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Hapur CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 6. 3891/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Hapur DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 7. 3900/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 8. 3899/Del/2025 AY 2021-22 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 9. 3898/Del/2025 AY 2020-21 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 10. 3897/Del/2025 AY 2019-20 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 11. 3892/Del/2025 AY 2014-15 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 12 3893/Del/2025 AY 2015-16 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 13 3894/Del/2025 AY 2016-17 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 14 3895/Del/2025 AY 2017-18 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 15 3896/Del/2025 AY 2018-19 KL Vegetable Oil Products Pvt. Ltd ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 16 3901/Del2025 AY 2022-23 Rajiv Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3)/ 147 17 3902/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Sonika Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3)/ 147 18 4109/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Sonika Agarwal CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 19 3903/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Shammi Agarwal ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3)/ 147 20 4107/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Shammi Agarwal CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) 21 3904/Del/2025 AY 2014-15 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 22 3505/Del/2025 AY 2015-16 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 23 3906/Del/2025 AY 2016-17 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 24 3907/Del/2025 AY 2017-18 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 25 3908/Del/2025 AY 2018-19 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 26 3909/Del/2025 AY 2019-20 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 27 3910/Del/2025 AY 2020-21 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 28 3911/Del/2025 AY 2021-22 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 29 3912/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 JK trading Company ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 30 3913/Del/2025 AY 2014-15 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 31 3914/Del/2025 AY 2015-16 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 32 3915/Del/2025 AY 2016-17 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 33 3916/Del/2025 AY 2017-18 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 34 3917/Del/2025 AY 2018-19 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 35 3918/Del/2025 AY 2019-20 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 36 3919/Del/2025 AY 2020-21 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 37 3920/Del/2025 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 38 3921/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 147/144 39 3925/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills ACIT, Ghaziabad CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3)/147 40 4087/Del/2025 AY 2022-23 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills CIT(A)-3, Noida order dated 15.04.2025 143(3) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 We have heard all these assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 2. It is noticed at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that these assessees/ appellants seek to raise their twin additional grounds i.e. interalia challenging legality of the impugned assessments for want of a valid approval; and, for AYs 2021-22 and 2022- 23, their respective stand is that when counted from the date of search in issue i.e 02.06.2022, the learned lower authorities ought to have framed respective assessments in question u/s 148 r.w.s 147 than that u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Learned CIT-DR vehemently objects to assessees instant identical application(s) regarding both the foregoing additional grounds. Ms. Singh’s case is that it was the assessees’ bounden duty to have raised the same before the CIT(A) so as to get an comprehensive adjudication thereupon u/s 250(6) of the Act. She further opposes the assessees’ aforesaid plea for want of all the corresponding supportive material/ evidence before the tribunal as well. 4. We hardly see any reason to accept the Revenue’s foregoing objections against the assessees respective applications seeking to admit the foregoing twin additional substantive grounds. We wish to make it clear that hon’bleapex court in NTPC Limited v/s CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has already settled the issue that this tribunal could very well entertain such a pure legal ground going to root of the matter. This is indeed coupled with the tribunal’s Special Bench in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB) that we could very well admitan additional ground so as to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee subject to a rider that all the relevant facts form part of the records. We find that all these assessees have already filed paper book running into 45 pages in support of both these additional grounds. We, thus, admit the same in very terms. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 5. Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parties i.e. validity of impugned assessments on account of the learned prescribed authority alleged failure in granting a proper approval u/s 148B of the Act. We are taken to the assessees’ detailed paper book wherein the learned prescribed authority i.e. Addl-CIT, Central Range, Meerut accorded its aforesaid identical approval for eg. Dated 29.03.2003 in Ms. Sonika Agarwal case; observing therein that he had occasion to go through the seized materials, appraisal reports and various documents from time to time. The matter admittedly did not end up to this stage. These assessees appear to have their filed respective “RTI” applications as to whether the said seized records etc; allegedly running into thousands of pages (23 to 25 in Paper Book annexure-A), had been sent to the learned prescribed authority or not. The Revenue’s stand in the said RTI matters intimated to these assessees reads “upon verification of the records all the case presently available; it is observed that no formal communication/ correspondence in this regard are placed on record”.] 6. [This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We are of the considered view in these facts that both the learned lower authorities; and, more particularly, the learned Assessing Officer as well as the Additional CIT have failed to comply with this statutory mandate of a valid approval u/s 148B of the Act i.e a provision parimateria to Section 153D and not sustenable in law as perPCIT v. Siddarth Gupta (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All), ACIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) PCIT v/s Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxmann.com 2 (Delhi) holding against the department that such an invalid approval vitiates the entire assessment itself. We, thus, find merit in the assessee’s instant first additional ground to quash all these impugned assessments as non–est ones in the eyes of law in very terms.] Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 7. The outcome of these assessee’s above latter additional grounds (supra) is hardly any different. We wish to reiterate here that once the learned lower authorities had carried out the search in issue dated 02.06.2022, both these impugned assessment years i.e AY: 2021-22 & 2022-23 ought to have been assessed only u/ 148 r.w.s 147 then u/ 143(3) of the Act. There is admittedly no denial to the fact that the learned prescribed authority had itself approved the impugned assessments u/s 148B of the Act (supra). We further take note of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Finance Bill; 2021. Further settling the issue in the assessees’ favour that such a case is covered under the newly introduced Section 147 only as per “three Assessment Years immediately preceding the assessment year reliable to the previous year in which this search is initiated…………….” Case law (2026) 182 taxmann.com 11 (Del) Montage Enteprise (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT has declined the Revenue’s very stand as well. We thus quash the impugned assessments for these latter assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 in above terms. 8. Next comes unexplained investment to property addition of Rs.3,42,34,540/- made to Ms. Sonika and Shammi Agarwal’s hands forming subject matter of our apt adjudication. Both the learned lower authorities have considered the total investment at Rs.6,53,38,873/- in the twin properties in question. Coming to the impugned sumn of Rs.3.42 (crores), learned counsel takes us to the seized document “Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal” indicating the same to be Rs.1,69,13,950/- only. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions and hold the assessee as entitled for further relief of Rs.1,73,20,590/- in above terms. Necessary computation shall follow. 9. Lastly comes the final issue of cash addition of Rs.4,55,93,004/- made in the assessee namely Ravinder Kumar Agarwal’s hands i.e. ITA No. 3925 & 4087/Del/2025. He admittedly happenes to be director in the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 company/assessee M/s KL Vegetables Oil Products Ltd. which are also assessed @ 1% NP i.e. Rs.4,41,61,257/- in AYs; 2014-15 to 2022-23. Learned counsel refers to the assessee’s search statement as 04.06.2022 (supra) in reply “ Ex. No. 13” admitting the impugned cash belonging to the company only which has nowhere been disputed as well. That being the case , we direct the learned Assessing Officer to consider and grant “telescoping” benefit to the assessee qua the aforesaid sum assessed in the company’s hands so as to avoid any double addition after verifying all relevant facts. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow. 10. To sum up, these nine assessees’ all the instant appeals in ITA Nos. 3879/Del/2025, 3881/Del/2025, 3880/Del/2025,3891/Del/2025, 3900/Del/2025, 3899/Del/2025, 3898/Del/2025, 3897/Del/2025, 3892/Del/2025, 3893/Del/2025, 3894/Del/2025, 3895/Del/2025, 3896/Del/2025, 3901/Del2025, 3902/Del/2025, 3903/Del/2025, 3904/Del/2025, 3505/Del/2025, 3906/Del/2025, 3907/Del/2025, 3908/Del/2025, 3909/Del/2025, 3910/Del/2025, 3911/Del/2025, 3912/Del/2025, 3913/Del/2025, 3914/Del/2025, 3915/Del/2025, 3916/Del/2025, 3917/Del/2025, 3918/Del/2025, 3919/Del/2025, 3920/Del/2025, 3921/Del/2025, 3925/Del/2025, are allowed and Revenue’s corresponding Cross-appeals in ITA Nos. 4143/Del/2025, 4095/Del/2025, 4109/Del/2025, 4107/Del/2025, 4087/Del/2025, as the case may be stand dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2026. -Sd/- -Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/03/2026 A K Keot Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "