SANGEETA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD, UP V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

ITA 5635/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sangeeta Sharma, a salaried employee, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad, which added Rs. 13,67,786 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention in the appeal was the alleged non-service of the notice under Section 148, which is crucial for reopening assessments under Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal examined whether the notice was properly served and whether the mandatory satisfaction note under Section 151 was provided to the assessee. The Department failed to provide evidence of the notice's service, leading to the Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828404 (ITAT-NEW DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 5635/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5635/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Sharma, Mohan Meakin Society, Sector-5, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. PAN: AUJPS 1801 Q Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Mayank Mohanka, CA Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 14.01.2026 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 07.07.2025 [ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078251494(1)], passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/JCIT(A)-1, Pune, arising out of the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad in proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 13,67,786/- made under Section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. The assessee, a Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5635/Del/2025 salaried employee, purchased innova car; source of purchase of the same is the subject matter before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised a legal ground to this effect that notice under Section 148 of the Act was never served upon the assessee which is mandatory in reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Further that the compulsory requirement of satisfaction note recorded by the Learned AO was not provided to the assessee, neither the satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act was forwarded to the assessee. There is no independent application of mind neither any independent inquiry was made before the 148 notice claimed to have been issued. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter the Learned DR submitted that the notice was sought to be served upon the assessee at H. No. 948, Mohan Meakin Society, Sector-5, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad but the acknowledgement thereof has not been submitted before the Bench. In fact the Learned DR has failed to furnish any evidence which could prove the service of notice under Section 148 upon the assessee which the first and foremost condition to be fulfilled under the provisions of Section 148(1) of the Act in the absence of which the entire proceeding is vitiated. 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter when it is evident that the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5635/Del/2025 Department is not in possession of any proof so as to justify that the notice under Section 148 of the Act sought to be served upon the assessee has been received by the assessee, meaning thereby the service of notice under Section 144 of the Act though claimed to have been made, the same is found to be incomplete in the absence of proof thereof, which renders the entire proceeding vitiated. As the very foundation of reassessment proceeding is found to be invalid the entire proceeding is quashed. The appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 14.01.2026. Sd/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14.01.2026. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "