SANJEEV BHARDWAJ,DELHI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4586/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed the assessee's appeal concerning an addition of INR 50,00,000 to his income. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, who treated the amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue in the appeal before the Tribunal was the validity of the notice issued under section 148 for reassessment, which was challenged on the grounds that it lacked the necessary approval from the prescribed authority at the time of issuance. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural validity of the notice and the compliance with statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841684 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com, Bindu Rani vs ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 79 (Del.Trib.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURAJ BHAN NAIN
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4586/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjeev Bhardwaj S-11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi-110020. PAN-AEKPB4030K vs ACIT Circle-28(1) Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 06.06.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-10/10723/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 18.05.2019, declaring total income of INR 381,54,310/-. Thereafter various notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4586/Del/2025 Page | 2 has received funds from M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd. of INR 50,00,000/-. Thereafter, inquiries were conducted and assessee was asked to explain the source and nature of these deposits in his bank account. After considering the submission filed by the assessee, it is concluded that assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the and accordingly the credit of INR 50,00,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and total income of the assessee stood assessed at INR 4,31,54,310/- vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 06.06.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and completing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 24.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13, being not in accordance with the requirements of provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of the amount received from M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4586/Del/2025 Page | 3 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, OR withdraw any ground OR grounds of appeal before OR at the time of hearing during appellate proceedings.” 5. In Ground of appeal No. 1, assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act without obtaining necessary approval as provided I in section 151 of the Act. 6. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019, copy of the same is placed at page 3 of PB and copy of the print out of online e-proceedings is paced at page 4 & 5 of PB. Ld. AR further submits that necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the Act was taken from Ld. PCIT on 30.03.2019 though the notice u/s 148 was already issued on 29.3.2019. Since the case of the assessee is reopened after the expiry of the Four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act without the approval of prescribed authority is invalid and thus he requested that consequent proceedings be quashed. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com and further, on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bindu Rani vs ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 79 (Del.Trib.). 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that this Ground of appeal has not been taken by the lower authorities and therefore, should not be admitted at this stage. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4586/Del/2025 Page | 4 8. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Claim of the assessee is that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019 though the statutory satisfaction and approval from the prescribed authority i.e. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-10, Delhi was obtained on 30.03.2019. The fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019 stood confirmed from e-proceedings print out taken from e-filing portal of the assessee and placed at pages 4 & 5 of PB. Further, from the perusal of the proforma for granting the approval before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, it is observed that Ld. PCIT-10, Delhi had recorded his satisfaction and granted his approval on 30.03.2019, necessary copy of the approval is placed at page 7 & 22 of PB. From the perusal of both the documents, it is very much clear that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without obtaining the approval from the prescribed authority and the same was taken later. Thus, the notice issued u/s 148 is without obtaining mandatory approval as required u/s 151(2) of the Act is invalid and bad in law. This view is supported by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd.(supra). The contention of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue that this issue was not raised before the lower authorities, cannot be accepted as the assessee has raised this issue by taking separate Ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same without going into the merits of the arguments made by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4586/Del/2025 Page | 5 9. In the light of the above, it is held that the notice issued u/s 148 on 29.03.2019 is without any statutory approval from the prescribed Authority as mandatorily required u/s 151(2) of the Act and therefore, the same is invalid and consequent reassessment proceedings concluded are hereby quashed. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed. 10. As we have allowed Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee and quashed the reassessment order, other Grounds of appeal became academic hence, not adjudicated. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-25.02.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "