Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6263
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (AMRITSAR BENCH)
KHURSHID AHMAD DAR JAMMU AND KASHMIR INDIA – Appellant
Versus
ITO WARD UDHAMPUR UDHAMPUR – Respondent
ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]
IN THE INCOM E TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GFEDCBA AM RITSAR BENCH (PHYSICAL), AM RITSAR BEFORE DR. M ITHA LALM EENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT M EM BER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL M EM BER ITA No. 236/ ASR/ 2025 (Assessm ent Year 2017-18)
K h u r sh i d A h m a d D a r N u l l y P o sh w a r i T u r k a w a n g a m , Sh o p i a , 1 9 2 3 0 5 , Ja m m u a n d K a sh m i r , I n d i a . P I N 1 9 2 3 0 5 . P A N N o . A W M P D 5 6 6 4 K
V s.
I T O , W a r d , U d h a m p u r
A sse sse e b y
Sh r i R o h i t K a p o o r , A d v . & Sh r i V . S. A g g a r w a l , I T P .
R e v e n u e b y
M r s. R o sh a n t a K u m a r i M e e n a , C I T D R .
D a t e o f H e a r i n g
2 3 . 0 9 . 2 0 2 5 .
D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t
to. [1 . 2 0 2 5 .
ORDER
DR. M ITHA LAL M EENA, A.M .:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by Id.
Com m issioner of Incom e Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, dated 31.07.2024 which em anates from the order of the NFAC, Delhi u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated
10.11.2016 with respect to the Assessm ent Year 2017-18.
2. The assessee has raised the follow ing grounds of appeal:
1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Incom e Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Com m issioner of Incom e Tax (Appeals), is contrary to law and facts, and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in m aking an addition of Rs.3.02,35,000/- in respect of cash deposited in current account, under Section 69A of the Incom e Tax Act, 1961.
2. That the assessm ent fram ed under section 147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2021 w ithout adhering to the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically without com plying with the provisions of section 148A.
3. That the CIT(E) has erred in upholding the addition m ade by the AO without appreciating the fact that that the im pugned notice u/s 148 was issued only on the online incom e tax portal and was never served on the assessee on the registered em ail id as required by the provisions of Section 282.
4. That the CIT(E) erred in not considering that the failure to serve the notice u/s 148 on the registered em ail ID deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity to respond and defend them selves, thereby violating the principles of natural justice
5. That on the facts and in the circum stances of the case, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening under section 148 was initiated solely based on Inform ation available in AIM S m odule of ITBA Portal, without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
6. That on the facts and in the circum stances of the case and in law, the Id AO erred in m aking addition to the tune of Rs 30235000/- by passing the order u/s 147 r.wis 1448. That that assum ption of jurisdiction u/s 148 by the Ld AO is in violation of m andatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated under the Act.
7. That the order passed u/s 147 is bad in law as the approval taken u/s 151 was not from the appropriate authority as m entioned in section 151(1). Therefore, the assessm ent proceedings initiated u/s 148 is without jurisdiction as notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of three years with the approval joint com m issioner/ additional com m issioner of Income Tax.
8. That the appellant craves leave to add, am end and alter the grounds of appeal.
3. The Ld. AR explained that there was bonafide reason for the delay of 171 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal as the im pugned order passed under section 250 of the Act, by the com m issioner of incom e tax appeals for the assessm ent year 2017-18 the was with CA Kapil Agarwal and due to the unfortunate passing of CA Kapil Agarwal, the appellant was unaware of the order u/s 250 of the act, as the docum ent and inform ation regarding the order were not prom ptly transferred to him. Further he explained that as soon as
