The assessment order was invalid due to failure to comply with notice service requirements under Section 282, hence quashed.

O R D E R

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN , J.M. :

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 11.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18 wherein the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the matter to the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) for deciding the case afresh after verifying all the new evidence before him.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds of appeal:

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in upholding the assessment order as the was never served upon appellant within the period prescribed u/s 153(1) of the Act and in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/s 282 of IT Act and rules framed thereunder.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in making/upholding the addition of Rs. 83,50,900/- u/s 69A rws 115BBE allegedly treating the above credits in bank account as unexplained money ignoring the submission of appellant.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both in law and in facts of the case in upholding the assessment order as the same has been undertaken 3 in the status of AOP u/s 2(31) (v) whereas the appellant is a partnership firm assessable as firm in view of sec 2(31)(iv) of IT Act. Therefore, such assessment order has been passed without the procedure for changing the status of appellant.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify/ amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.”

3. The facts in brief as culled out from the proceedings that the appellant is a partnership firm coming into existence w.e.f. 31.07.2025 through a deed of partnership executed on that date between two partners Sh.Apurv Jain and Shlshu Sharma. As per Section 2 (31)(iv) of the Act, the appellant being a firm is assessable entity and assessment has been carried out in the status of AOP wrongly. As per e-filing record, the assessee has not filed ITR for A.Y. 2017-18. As per AIMS module of ITBA Portal, it was noticed that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 67,25,000/- in account maintained with ICICI, Gujranwala Town Branch, Delhi during the period of demonetization. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued through AIMS module of ITBA portal dated 24.11.2017 asking the assessee to file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. It is alleged that the said notice was duly served by the mode of E-mail but assessee failed to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act vide dated 07.06.2019 and 09.09.2019 were issued. The assessee filed reply in compliance of notice dated 09.09.2019 vide reply dated 14.09.2019 stating that the amount of cash deposited during demonetization period was received in cash from relatives. The details of relatives were also provided to whom the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were sent to find out identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It is stated that none of the response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act fulfilled the criteria to prove the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee and finally, show cause notice was get affixed at the known addresses of the assessees. Despite several notices issued the assessee did not file the ITR in re