ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2015-16/10117631 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax, (Appeals)/ NFAC Delhi,[hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year A.Y. 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 12.07.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 3,50,650/- on presumptive basis of gross receipts of Rs. 62,58,060/-. Department received an information from investigation wing that assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,13,000/- on education of daughter. Further that the assessee had credits of Rs. 2,70,12,301/- in his bank accounts. Assessing officer, after recording reasons to believe and after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. Assessee filed belated return on 28.01.2022 in response to notice u/.s 148 of the Act, which was treated as non-est and the notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued accordingly. Assessee’s objections against the notices u/s. 148 of the Act, were rejected by the assessing officer and completed the assessment u/s. 147/144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 15,97,348/- as undisclosed profits vide, assessment order dated 30.03.2022.

3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who sustained the additions made vide, aforesaid assessment order.

4. Assessee has raised the following grounds under this second appeal:

“1. Because, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in conforming the validity of issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Act, ignoring the admitted fact that Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued via Email on 01.04.2021 at 6:32am. The Notice under section 148 issued beyond the limitation given in substituted section 149 of the amended Act is void-ab-initio.

2. Because, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in conforming the validity of issuance of Notice 148 of the Act, disregarding and ignoring the important aspect that the scheme of reassessment under Section 147 to 151 was substantially changed by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021. the consequent proceedings done by the Ld. AO is illegal and void-ab-initio, in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal.

3. Because, the Notice under section 148 was issued under old regime on 01.04.2021, when entire reassessment under section 147 to 151 has been substituted and substantial change have been brought by the new regime had vitiated the entire proceedings and consequently the reassessment is liable to be quashed.

4. Because, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO, despite the admitted failure on the part of the Ld. AO to issue mandatory statutory Notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Non issuance of such notice renders the assessment proceedings void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction, and therefore liable to be set aside.

5. Because, upon the facts and in overall circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer ignoring the submission made by the Appellant during the course of appellate proceedings.

6. Because, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law as the case of appellant does not fall under section 147 of the Act. There was no income chargeable to tax escaped assessment, therefore the very initiation of reassessment proceeding is illegal, wrong jurisdiction has been assumed.

7. Because, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the notice under section 1