VINAY KUMAR,NOIDA V. ITO WARD-5(2)(5), NOIDA

ITA 3543/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Vinay Kumar against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Noida, concerning an assessment for the year 2015-16. The primary legal issue was the validity of a faceless assessment conducted on 28th March, 2022, before the official notification of the faceless assessment scheme on 29th March, 2022. The Tribunal referenced previous cases, particularly Suresh Chand Vs. ITO and Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which supported the appellant's position that the assessment was conducted without proper jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840034 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, Suresh Chand Vs. ITO, Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3543/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Vinay Kumar, C-59, Sector-88, Noida Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Noida PAN: DYAPK5262B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072758455(1), dated 31.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Assessee by Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Delay of 59 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Coming to the first and foremost legal issue between the parties, we notice at the outset that the assessee’s case before use is that the assessing authority has erred in law and on facts in framing its faceless assessment on 28th March, 2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that faceless scheme itself came to be notified on 29th March, 2022 i.e. post facto assessment herein framed on 28th March, 2022. 4. This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal’s earlier order in Suresh Chand Vs. ITO, ITA No.4110/Del/2024 decided on 30th July, 2025 already appears to have settled the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department as under: “5. We now come to the basic relevant facts. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned assessing authority had issued section 148 notice to the assessee on 31.03.2021. He did not file any return in response thereto. All this followed the Assessing Officer’s section 142(1) twin notices dated 24.12.2021 and 11.02.2022 followed by his assessment in question framed on 21.03.2022 treating the assessee’s alleged cash deposits of Rs.4,22,25,229/- as unexplained, which stand upheld to the extent of Rs.2,00,00,000/- only in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 3 | P a g e It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s case before us is that given the fact that the faceless regime in question got notified on 29.03.2022, the faceless assessment framed in his case on 21.03.2022 is non-est in the eyes of law. 6. The Revenue has drawn strong support from the learned lower authorities respective findings framing the faceless assessment herein in the assessee’s case. We find no reason to express our concurrence to the Revenue’s foregoing arguments. A perusal of the case file indicates that this tribunal recent learned co-ordinate bench order in ITA No. 1328/Kol/2024 dated 15.10.2024 in Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO has decided the very issue against the department as under: “1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. did not file the return of income for the AY 2017-18 as a result of which case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') received information from the investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was mentioned that in course of the investigation in the case of M/s. Darsh Coke Trading Pvt. Ltd., it was revealed that the said company is a paper company through which entry operators provide bogus entries and layer money in exchange of commission. It was also found that the one of the beneficiaries is the assessee company which has received Rs. 15,00,000/- from a paper concern namely Tanishi Commotrades Pvt. Ltd. During the course of re-assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the transactions with Tanishi Commotrades Pvt. Ltd. In response, the assessee submitted that in the current year i.e. FY 2016-17 the assessee took a loan/ advance from this party against sale of goods and in the immediately succeeding year i.e. FY 2017-18 sales were made to Tanishi Commotrades Pvt. Ltd and said sale was duly credited in the Profit and Loss account of the company and tax was duly paid. However, the AO was not convinced with the submission filed by the assessee and accordingly, added the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The said assessment order has been challenged before the ld. CIT(A) wherein in absence of any response from the appellant the case of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order by taking several grounds but he, in course of hearing, took an additional ground being the legal ground and he pressed only legal ground which are as follows: “That the National Faceless Assessment Centre erred in having assumed jurisdiction u/s 151A r.w.s 144B of the Act from 29.11.2021 when they were not empowered under any notification about the applicability of the faceless scheme for making assessment in faceless manner prior to 29.03.2022.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 4 | P a g e 1.3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of Section 151A of the Act came in the statute on 01.11.2021 but it was notified with effect from 29.03.2022.But in the present case, assessment proceedings to the NFAC started on 29.11.2021 which is evident from the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the show cause notice has also been issued and the date has been mentioned as 28.03.2022 that is prior to 29.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assumption of jurisdiction by the NFAC was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the whole assessment is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further drew the attention of this Bench on the issuance of show cause notice and submitted that it was served on 29.03.2022 and asked the assessee to furnish explanation on or before 29.03.2022,it means without giving the assessee any opportunity before framing of the assessment order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the following papers: a) Notification of Ministry of Finance dated 29.03.2022. b) Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. c) Show cause notice dated 28.03.2022. 1.4. Ld. D/R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection on the legal ground. 2. We have perused the records and the papers filed by the assessee. It appears that Notification with respect to Section 151A of the Act has been made with effect from 29.03.2022 which is as under: “S.O. 1466(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement.—(1) This Scheme may be called the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. (2)It shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2.Definitions.—(1) In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, — (a)“Act” means the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961); (b)“automated allocation” means an algorithm for randomised allocation of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimise the use of resources. (2)Words and expressions used herein and not defined, but defined in the Act, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Act. 3. Scope of the Scheme.—For the purpose of this Scheme,— (a)assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 5 | P a g e (b)issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided insection 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.” 2.1. We have also gone through the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29.11.2021 which is as follows: 2.2. We further find the show cause notice issued that also reflects the date 28.03.2022 which is as follows: ……………………………….. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 6 | P a g e 2.3. It appears from the show cause notice issued on 28.03.2022 that at the bottom of the page it was digitally signed thereby giving date 29.03.2022 at 00:20:37 IST. 2.4. We further find that in the show cause notice the assessee has been directed to furnish explanation on or before 29.03.2022. It is surprising that when it was issued on 29.03.2022 at 00:20:37 IST and directed the assessee to explain the explanation before 29.03.2022. 3. Keeping in view the entire facts and discussions made above, we find substance in the argument of the ld. CIT(A) that assumption of jurisdiction prior to 29.03.2022 by the ld. AO is to be held to be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the assessment order, passed, is to be deemed without jurisdiction. Subsequently, all the orders passed are hereby held to be without jurisdiction.” 7. We adopt the above detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant additional/legal ground in very terms to quash the assessing authority’s assessment framed in his case on 21.03.2022. Ordered accordingly.” 5. We adopt the above extracted detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned assessment on 28th March, 2022 in very terms. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3543/Del/2025 7 | P a g e All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th February, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "