Notice u/s 148 served on 01.04.2021 via email, despite digital signing on 31.03.2021, deemed issued post-amendment; reassessment quashed for non-compliance with section 148A procedure.

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.08.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.sections144/144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022.

2. The assessee company filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 28,66,609/- and the assessment stood completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.72,91,505/- by making addition of Rs. 1,01,58,114/-. Based on the information received through data flagged by the Directorate of Systems, that a Search and Seizure operation in the case of Samtel Group of Companies was conducted on 18.01.2018 and during the search proceedings, it was found that 04 Non-Banking Finance Companies (“NBFCs”) viz. M/s SW Consultants Pvt. Ltd., M/s CEA Consultants Pvt. Limited, Tish Consultants P Ltd and M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans. The name of the assessee was appearing in the list of beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entries of unsecured loans. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was passed dated 30.03.2022 at a total income at Rs. 1,58,02,700/- by making addition of Rs. 83,44,313/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE and further, addition of Rs 1,66,886/- as commission paid @ 2% u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act was made.

3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition/disallowance made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal and has raised following Grounds of appeal:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer while making addition of Rs 85,11,199/- acted against the principle of natural justice despite of the fact that the same is made based on material collected at the back of the assessee without supplying the background material and giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the third party or information even though assessee has specifically asked for the same.

2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer.

3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred, both on facts and in law, in making the addition arbitrarily by ignoring the explanation and evidences fled by the assessee and despite of submitting all the requisite details in respect of loan taken and those have been duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee.

4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred, both on facts and in law despite the fact that the assessee had submitted full details regarding the earning profile of the entity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified.

5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate