2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 2765
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
M. Balaganesh, ACM, Raj Kumar Chauhan, JM
Zeliant Corp – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA
For the Respondents: Sh. Nitin Kumar Jaiman, SR-DR
Judgement Key Points
Case Summary
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, before Shri M. Balaganesh (AM) and Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (JM), decided ITA No. 2201/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18 on 06-02-2026. (!)
- Assessee: Zeliant Corp (PAN: AAAAZ2019H), partnership firm formed via deed dated 31.07.2015 between partners Apurv Jain and Shishu Sharma, assessable as firm u/s 2(31)(iv). (!) (!) (!)
- Assessment by ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi: Best judgment u/s 144 on 28-12-2019 adding Rs. 83,50,900 (including Rs. 72,82,000 cash deposits, Rs. 67,25,000 during demonetization) as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE; initiated penalty u/s 271AAC. (!) (!)
- CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 02-2025: Allowed appeal for statistical purposes, remanded to AO for fresh decision after verifying new evidence (partnership deed, bank statement, Form 26AS) and providing opportunity to assessee, citing natural justice and Finance (No.2) Act 2024 amendment w.e.f. 01.10.2024. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Grounds of Appeal before ITAT
- Assessment order not served within time u/s 153(1) and as per procedure u/s 282. (!)
- Addition of Rs. 83,50,900 u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE as unexplained credits in bank account, ignoring assessee's submissions. (!)
- Assessment framed in status of AOP u/s 2(31)(v) instead of firm u/s 2(31)(iv), without procedure for status change. (!) (!)
Key Proceedings and Arguments
- No ITR filed for AY 2017-18; notices u/s 142(1) issued (24.11.2017, 07.06.2019, 09.09.2019); assessee replied on 14.09.2019 claiming cash from relatives, notices u/s 133(6) issued but unsatisfactory responses; no books filed; bank statement showed deposits Rs. 72,82,000. (!)
- Assessee argued before ITAT: Assessment void ab initio due to non-service of notice/order (incomplete email "1911@gmail.com", no SMS alert beyond ITBA portal); CIT(A) remand futile. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- ITAT directed Revenue (23.12.2025) to report: (a) if email bounced; (b) any SMS/other communication beyond ITBA. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Revenue reply (28.01.2026): Order uploaded on e-filing but showed in "Notices" due to technical error; claimed service via speed post (Tracking ID ED591719230IN on 31.12.2019) with computation/demand, but no tracking proof filed; prior submission noted computation/demand served via portal, order not due to error. (!) (!) (!)
ITAT Decision
- Non-service of assessment order/notice as per s. 282 r.w.r. 127: Email incomplete/unrelated, no SMS trigger before ITBA upload, no proof of speed post delivery; resulted in miscarriage of justice; order/proceedings bad in law, quashed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Appeal allowed. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment challenged due to procedural errors and evidence presented. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court discusses the substantial orders and grounds for appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments made regarding improper service of the assessment order. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. assessment order quashed on legal grounds. (Para 12) |
| 5. conclusion affirming the appeal outcome. (Para 13) |
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 ser
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
