IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.1425/Del/2024 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2021-22 SHILPI SARDANA, बनाम DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF B-99, Swastya Vihar, Vs. INCOME TAX, Lakshmi Nagar, Central Circle-31, S.O. East Delhi. Room No.343, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., PAN No.BWUPS9736E Delhi.

अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. &

Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 19.08.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 27.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 29.01.2024 for the AY 2021-22. The assessee in her appeal raised the following grounds:

“Ground 1 Validity of assessment proceedings/order Ground 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment completed vide order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act being barred by limitation is illegal, bad in law and is void ab initio and thus liable to be quashed.

Ground 1.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order mentioned the objections raised in the case of some other appellant, hence impugned order passed in a haste manner, without any application of mind and thus liable to be quashed.

Ground 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law such DIN, which does not even exist on the Income Tax portal, is invalid and non-est.

Ground 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, since the impugned order is non-est, invalid, the additions made therein are invalid, beyond jurisdiction and bad in law.

Ground 2 Alleged addition of unexplained cash to the income of the appellant Ground 2.1 That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in adding an amount of Rs.1,77,00,000/- to the total income merely on the basis that amount is appearing in a random WhatsApp chat between one Mr. Parveen Kumar Jain and Mr. Nilesh Shah.

Ground 2.2 That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in not bringing any material/evidence on record that the alleged income was received by the appellant.

Ground 2.3 The said addition is unjustified, arbitrary and not sustainable either on the facts or on law and is being challenged by virtue of this appeal.

Ground 2.4 The order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. The appellant craves leave to add delete modify or substitute any or all the grounds of appeal at any appropriate time.”

2. The assessee also filed application seeking admission of additional ground of appeal stating as under:

1. “It is submitted that the notice under Section 143(2)

issued by the Ld. AO on 30.06.2022 is in violation of Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 (‘Instruction’) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’). Therefore, the said notice is invalid, and assessment framed pursuant thereto is vitiated in law and void ab-initio. The legal and factual background is briefly set out below:

Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017

2. CBDT has prescribed mandatory guidelines vide the Instruction prescribing the form in which assessing officers are required to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for initiation of scrutiny assessment proceedings. As per the Instruction, three separate formats were prescribed for notice under Section

143(2) for the following cases:

a. Limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected)

b. Complete scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected)

c. Compulsory manual scrutiny

3. The assessing officers are mandatorily required to follow the format prescribed under the Instruction and specify in the notice under Secti