SANJEEV YADAV,DELHI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1843/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sanjeev Yadav, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information received under the Risk Management Strategy, which indicated significant financial activities by the assessee. Notices under sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Income-tax Act were issued but were claimed by the assessee to have been sent to an incorrect address. The Tribunal examined whether the AO had correctly assumed jurisdiction to reassess the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that the notices were properly served through the ITBA portal and also physically to the assessee's parents' house, rejecting the assessee's claim of non-receipt due to the negligence of his CA.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782174 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO, M/s Carry Co, Prop: Mr. Kajal Kumar Garai Versus Union of India & ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K. SAHU
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 2

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Shri Sanjeev Yadav Vs. The I.T.O D-8, House No. 7, Vasant Vihar Ward - 30(5) South West Delhi, New Delhi Delhi PAN – AALPY 6770 E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Sahu, Adv Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 29.01.2025 for A.Y 2016-17. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as 5 grounds of appeal, but the challenge to the service of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] for assumption of jurisdiction to frame order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 2 of 8 u/s 147 of the Act goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we decided to adjudicate the same first. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual and did not file any return of Income for AY 2016-17. The AO received an information under Risk Management strategy that the assessee has sold an immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,57,00,000/-; had received Gross rental receipts of Rs.26,48,296/-; Gross interest receipts of Rs.17,837/- and Cash deposit of Rs.42,48,000/- in his bank account maintained with RBL Bank Limited during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to A.Υ. 2016-17. As the assessee did not file any return, reopening process was initiated vide issuance of show cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.02.2023 and passing of order u/s 148(A)(d) dated 10.03.2023 and subsequent issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 10.03.2023 after obtaining approval PCCIT, New Delhi. Ultimately, the AO, in absence of any explanation from the assessee, added Rs. 1,57,00,000/- received on sale of property; Gross rental receipts of Rs.26,48,296/-; Gross interest receipts of Rs.17,837/- and Cash deposit of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 3 of 8 Rs.42,48,000/- in his bank account, assessing the total income at Rs 2,26,14,133/- u/s 144 r.w. 147 r.w. 144B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment u/s 144 to the AO for fresh adjudication. Further aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 6. The ld AR of the assessee before us has contended that the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.02.2023; order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer, was never received by the assessee. The said notices/order bore the address at C-9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi whereas the correct address is D-8, House No. 7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is the say of ld AR that this address is given in the Income tax return for AY 2022-23 filed by the assessee and available in the PAN database. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the Assessing Officer and he could not have assumed jurisdiction to conduct the re-assessment proceedings and pass re-assessment order without serving the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 7. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A). The ld DR pointed out to the written submissions filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), that due to financial difficulties, he forgot to file the income tax return for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 and how his CA Pramod Goel was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 4 of 8 negligent in monitoring assessee’s compliance with Income Tax Department. The ld DR further pointed out that the assessee narrated how he downloaded all the notices/assessment order/demand notice etc from the office of his newly appointed advocate P.K.Sahu. The ld DR submitted that this admission itself shows that all the notices/assessment orders etc was uploaded by the AO in ITBA portal in the e-filing account of the assessee and the assessee did not physically receive the same because of the fault of his erstwhile CA. The ld DR submitted that the there is no flaw in assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and the CIT(A) was correct in setting aside the matter to the AO. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused carefully the materials on record. We find from the written submission filed before the CIT(A) that the assessee due to some financial difficulties, forgot to file the return for AY 2016-17. The assessee engaged a CA Pramod Goel, partner of M/s Acharya Goel & Associates, for filing RoI for AY 2019-20 onwards, and was entirely dependent on him for filing return and monitor compliance of income tax matters. The said CA first informed the assessee with regard to assessments made for AY 2016-17 but he could not download any orders/notices. The assessee thereafter approached P.K.Sahu, Advocate, who assisted the assessee to download all the notices u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 5 of 8 the assessment order u/s 144 and demand notice. In the said written submissions before the CIT(A), the assessee admitted that “On 21.02.2024, I realized that there was non-compliance by me with respect to many notices issued by the Income Tax Department for A.Y. 2016-17. This was due to my dependence on CA Promod Goel. Since he stated to me that he could not download the documents from the website, I requested him to give a certificate that the delay in compliance has been on account of his office not being able to access and download notices and order. However, to my disbelief, he refused to give such a certificate”. 9. With such an admission, there is no scope for sustaining the ground of wrongful assumption of jurisdiction on account of non-receipt of notice u/s 148. We find, and the assessee himself admitted the fact before the CIT(A) that he had engaged a CA to monitor compliance of all the communications in his account of the Income tax Department website. The assessee had entrusted the CA to bring the notices u/s 148 in the knowledge of the assessee and to initiate compliance. With these facts, once all the requisite notices/orders are uploaded in the e-filing ITBA portal in assessee’s account, the assessee plea that the notice u/s 148 was not served on him, cannot be sustained. The assessee cannot blame his CA for inefficiency and at the same time blame the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 6 of 8 Department for not serving the notice u/s 148. Further, we find from the same written submission of the assessee filed before the CIT(A), the address C-9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, where the notice were physically despatched, was address of his parents. In these factual matrix of the instant case, we find that the AO not only issued/served notices u/s 148 in the ITBA portal of the assessee but also physically issued and served the notices to the assessee’s parents house. In the instant case, the AO not only uploaded the notice on the ITBA portal, he shared the notice on E-mail [e-mail] and also sent the notice through speed post to the parent house. But for the negligence/fault of the CA of the assessee, who was appointed to monitor compliance with Income Tax Department, the said notices were not viewed by the assessee on ITBA portal. Thus, the averment that the AO did not serve any notice u/s 148 to him, stands rejected. We are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 517 290 Taxman 493 (Delhi)(HC) which recognized the service of notice u/s 148 through ITBA portal. We also are fortified by the decision of the hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Carry Co, Prop: Mr. Kajal Kumar Garai Versus Union of India & ors. - 2025 (6) TMI 1000 where it held that service of order by uploading on the GST portal constitutes valid service. Ground 1 to 5 is accordingly dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 7 of 8 10. We are further of the considered view that the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC in setting aside the assessment to the file of the AO, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be interfered with. In order to uphold the principles of natural justice, we endorse the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC in invoking his statutory powers u/s 251(1)(a) to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making fresh assessment as the reassessment was made ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT(Exemptions) 463 ITR 560 wherein the Hon'ble High Court questioned the validity of service of notice through ITBA portal but at the same time, to uphold the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. Similar stand was taken by the coordinate bench of Pune ITAT in the case of Shree Vyagreshwar Kulswami Pariwar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 615 (Pune - Trib.)[29-07-2024]. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1843/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Sanjeev Yadav Vs. ITO Page 8 of 8 The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27th October, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order . 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order Printed from counselvise.com "