Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Santosh Kumar Rungta,Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, , Kolkata on 28 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " D" BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
AND
SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
ITA No. 88/KOL/2026
( Assessment Year: 2019-20)
Santosh Kumar Rungta DCIT, Circle -29
20, Sukrit, Ballygunge Circular Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, 2,
Road, Kolkata-700019, Vs. Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata -
West Bengal 700031, West Bengal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No. ADARP3669P
Assessee by : S/Shri S.M. Surana &
Sunil Surana, ARs
Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Date of hearing: 16.04.2026
Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2026
ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 24.12.2025 for the AY 2019-20.
2. The issue raised in grounds no.1 & 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment proceedings which are invalid and bad in law sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act when the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act made full compliance by filing a letter before the AO to treat the original return as return in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act.
2.1. The facts in brief are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.04.2023, after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act.
Page | 2 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 Pertinent to state that the return u/s 139(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income of ₹37,77,134/-. The case of the assessee was reopened after information was received from the insight portal Criu/Vru, pertaining to the A.Y. 2019-20, indicating that the assessee was involved in investing/advancing unaccounted money as cash loans. The information revealed that Santosh Kumar Rungta (assessee), is the lender of cash loans to various entities through finance broker Anil Kumar Kasera(Kasera Group)during F.Y. 2018-19 and assessee is the beneficiary of the same. The said information was collected by the investigation wing in post search proceedings which revealed that finance brokers were engaged in unaccounted cash transactions on large scale basis in lieu of commission. The assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act did not file any ITR as per the version of the Ld. AO. On 26.06.2024, the assessment proceedings were transferred from JAO to AO assessment unit. It is mentioned on page no.4 of the assessment order that due to non- filing of ITR u/s 148 of the Act, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued. Finally, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO by making additions of unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act of ₹7,80,00,000/- and capital gain of ₹7,28,846/- in the assessment framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 30.03.2025. It is pertinent to state that the assessee responded to various notices issued by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings.
2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) restored the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for deciding the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we observed from the assessment order that Page | 3 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 undisputedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO. The reasons cited by the Ld. AO for non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was that the assessee had not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 25.04.2023, whereas the facts on record reveals that the assessee vide letter dated 25.05.2023, informed the Ld. AO that return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 06.11.2019 may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the of the Act.
"Please refer to the above notice.
It appears that the case has been transferred to you by NFAC, Kindly, send copy of the transfer order. It is submitted that you have no jurisdiction over the case since the CBDT has not conferred jurisdiction to you in my case.
I would also like to submit that notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law. Further, time allowed to comply with notice u/s 148 was less than 3 months which is not in conformity of the standard rules of providing natural justice. Therefore, notice is also bad in law and ab initio void. The entire reassessment is liable to quashed.
Even otherwise I have duly complied to notice u/s 148 by letter dated 25.05.2023 via registered email on 25.05.2023 requesting to treat the return already filed u/s 139 on 06.11.2019 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 251368521061119 and on record of the department as return submitted in response to notice u/s. 148 aforesaid. Therefore, return was duly filed in response to notice u/s 148. The issue is not in dispute that filing of letter to treat the return originally filed as return in response to u/s 148 is sufficient compliance to the notice u/s 148. Reference may be made to the following judgements:-
Santosh Kumar Rungta 20, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata-700019 by investment and did not carry out any business nor any other means to have carned such a huge income Without any source of generating such a huge income I could not have given any loan of entered into any cash transaction with any person and in this case it just an act of imagination and it is impossible for me to have given any loan as alleged.
Further, in connection to the allegation that I have given cash loans through Kasera Group, it is again reiterated that I did not give any loan to or had any cash loan transaction with anyone and/or through Kasera. The statements of the finance brokers were recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. However, your honour has not provided me any statements of the finance brokers or the said Anil Kumar Kasera for the Asst.
Page | 4 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 Year in question so as to check whether at all my name appears in the statements because my name cannot appear since 1 never entered into any such transaction with the said broker. I cannot be made responsible to the allegations of cash loan alleged to be given by me when I was not even given an opportunity to examine him nor even a copy of the statement made by him in which he has alleged that he had any cash loan transaction with me was ever provided. It is imperative and mandatory to give me a chance to defend any allegation against me any attempt to hold me guilty without even giving me a chance to defend myself is bad in law.
However, the copy of statement of Kasera was forwarded to me with the proceedings for another Asst. Year ie 2017-18. I have gone through the statement I could not locate my name anywhere therefore the basis of reopening has no legs to stand upon as the sole reasons for reopening of the assessment and proposing addition on the basis of statement of Anil Kumar Kasera. Further in his statement in Q11 which is as under Q.11 Please provide the detalls of partles to whom you have been provided your services for last 6 years.
Ans. Sir, all the party detalls are reflected at my bank pass book as I have received all my commission from parties by cheque."
However, neither any evidence has been brought on record nor any evidence has been given by Anil Kasera that I have given any brokerage to him by cheque for any transaction. No payment was ever made to Anil Kasera, Further I have also filed bank statement of all the bank accounts held by me during the year in response to notice u/s 142(1) wherein also your honour will not find any transaction or payment of commission to Anil Kasera. Therefore it is evident that I have not entered into any transaction with or through Anil Kasera and the said statement of Anil Kasera is not corroborated.
SANTOSH KUMAR RUNGTA 20, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata 700019Email: indv.onatrungtagromp.in I cannot be asked to prove the negative (reference to KP Verghese SC 131 ITR 597). It is for your honour to bring credible evidence from which one can establish that I have entered into any transaction with finance broker during the year.
Your honour has further explained the method for identification of beneficiaries however no material like Rukka, data available in public domain, market information, statements recorded and explanation by the broker has been provided to me to show my involvement in any such transaction. I fail to understand what do you mean by "Rukka," "Public Domain" and "Market information." In the notice, only small portion of data downloaded from google has been furnished along with my name and PAN No. (PAN is now available to each officer of the department on finger tips). It therefore appears that you have blindly relied on the information uploaded on the Insight Portal without any findings or verification of your own. Further, it is also submitted that your honour had alleged in show cause notice u/s 148A(b) and the information from the insight portal that I had provided cash loan of Rs. 7,80,00,000/- to Kasera Group. Even Page | 5 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 the documents mentioned in the case related information details i.e., the statement of Anil Kumar Kasera and the "Letter to AO" on which reliance has been placed has also not been provided to me. This shows that no material was ever supplied to me before reopening the case and there are several judgement of high courts when the assessee is not provided with the material the entire reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
It is very puzzling how your honour has concluded that amount of Rs. 7,80,00,000/- has escaped assessment when even the information based on which such allegation is made contradicts the same. This goes on to show that there has been no independent application of mind on your honour's part to arrive at the said figure. Further, your honour has not mentioned the date on which such transactions took place, you have only mentioned my name as probable name as also the probable name of the broker, no other information is available on the basis of which you have initiated the reopening. Your honour is requested to kindly send the details of the transactions, date on which such transactions took place, place where the loans were received and loans were further given, the basis of the exorbitant figures given. When the department alleges some investment it is for the department to prove such investment. All I can say is that even your honour is not aware of the information I have sought"
3. We note that the said letter was filed before the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A). Therefore in our opinion, the assessee has made compliances to the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore it is mandatory on the part of the Ld. AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act failing which the assessment framed by the Ld. AO is nullity and bad in law. The case of the assessee is find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 130/KOL/2018 vide order dated 23.10.2019 , thereby the co-ordinate bench has held as under:-
"5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the Revenue's case on the preliminary issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to the validity of the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/144, the learned DR has contended that there being no return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148, there was no requirement of issue of notice u/s 143(2) and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/144 for want of issue of notice u/s 143(2). In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Pr. CIT vs Broadway Shoe Co. 259 Taxman 223 wherein it was held that where there was no return filed in pursuance to notice issued u/s 148, issue of notice u/s 143(2) was not required for making the assessment.
Page | 6 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20
6. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has submitted that a letter was submitted by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings before the AO on 09.07.2014 stating that the return originally filed u/s 139 on 26.09.2011 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. He hascontended that the notice issued u/s 148 thus was duly complied with by the assessee and it was mandatory for the AO to issue a notice u/s 143(2) before proceedings to make an assessment u/s 147. In this regard, the learned DR has contended that the letter filed by the assessee cannot replace the return and by filing such letter, the assessee cannot be said to have complied with the requirement of filling the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148. It is however observed that this aspect has already been considered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order wherein a letter was filed by the assessee on 16.12.2010 informing the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s 148. The AO thereafter, proceeded to complete the reassessment without issuing a notice u/s 143(2) and it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) subsequent to 16.12.2010 when the assessee made the statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return filed pursuant to a notice u/s 148 of the Act, was fatal to the order of reassessment. It was held that there was thus no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal cancelling the reassessment made by the AO on the ground that the same was made without issue of notice u/s 143(2). In our opinion, the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in quashing the assessment made by the AO u/s 147/144 of the Act by treating the same as void ab initio by relying on the same. We, therefore, upholdthe impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this preliminary issue and dismiss Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal. "
3.1.1. We note that the said decision of the co-ordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in ITAT 182/2022, IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022, in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Private Limited vide order dated 05.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under:-
"The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration-
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), quaahing the order of the Assessing Officer under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, without appreciating the facts that assessee did not comply with the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not required in assessee's case ?
Page | 7 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 On perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal we find the legal issue involved in the instant case has been rightly dealt with by the learned Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and quashing the reassessment proceeding for want of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In this regard usual reference may be made to the decision of the High Court of Madras in M/s. Sapthagiri Finance & Investments -vs- The Income Tax Officer TC(A) No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012. In the said decision after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362(SC) the reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect "
3.1.2. Besides, we note that the reopening of assessment which has been raised in ground no.3 has been made by the Ld. AO on the basis of information from the investigation wing which is extracted as under:
"Broker Name PAN Related Group Grand Total
entity
AKK Santosh Kumar ADAPR36669p Lansdowne Towers 10,15,00,000
Rungta Pvt. Ltd.
Group Name: SANTOSH KUMAR RUNGTA/MADGUL PARKS PVT LTD/LANSDOWNE TOWERS PVT LTD
1. Potential lender or borrower status: Lender
2. Lenders Annexure reference: Madgul Parks P Ltd
3. Possible financial transactions deduced and decoded from hard copies obtained from DDIT (please refer Annexure in excel version for further details) Potential cash lent to various borrowers Rs. 10.15 crore
4. Entities and individuals appearing under the column "Different format of lender names" clubbed under this group can be referred in the lender directorship annexure.
5. Names of those individuals and entities which could not be construed as directly or indirectly related from public domain sources and still clubbed with Santosh Rungta is done basis the excel file named "AkkHD1000010" found in HDD "IMAGE -AKK/HD/1"
which appears to be an image of the computer found at residence of AKK and highlighted in yellow for comparison purposes.
6. Entities/individuals which could not be substantiated for direct/indirect relation with Santosh Rungta but are still clubbed and grouped under this group as they are written alongside the same name in annexures by the assessee are highlighted in green below Page | 8 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20
7. Probable unique names coming under "Different format of lender names" in the Annexure listed below;
• Santosh Rengupta (Madgni Parks) • Santosh Rengupta (Madgul P) • Santosh Ringta (Madgul Parks Pvt. Ltd.) • Santosh Rungta (Madgul Parks Pvt Ltd.) • Santosh Rengupta • Santosh Rengupta (Santosh Agarwal) • Santosh Rungta (Santosh kr) • Santosh Rangla • Santosh Rungta • Santosh Rungta (Santosh Agarwal) • Santosh Rengupta (Lansdown) • Santosh Rengupta (Savann App) • Santosh Rengupta (Suvarn A) • Santosh Ringta (Lansdowne Towers Pvt. Ltd.) • Santosh Ringta (Swarn Apartment Pvt. Ltd.) • Santosh Rungta (Lansdowne Tower Pvt. Ltd.) • Santosh Rungta(SuvamAppartment) Extract of the excel file named "AkkHD1000010" found in HDD "IMAGE - AKK/HD/1" which appears to be an image of the computer found at residence of AKK is produced as below.
Santosh Rungta (Ballygunge circular Road) Suvarn Apartment Pvt. Ltd.
Lansdown Towers Pvt. Ltd.
JG Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Madgul Parks Pvt. Ltd."
3.1.3. We note from the above that para 7 of the said report suggests the probably names given under different format of lender names in the annexure. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment cannot be made on the basis of any probability or presumption as Page | 9 ITA No. 88/KOL/2026 Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20 has been held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia in ITA No. 1677/KOL/2024 vide order dated 17.04.2024, wherein the co-ordinate bench had upheld the order of Ld. CIT (A) upholding the finding that Ld. CIT (A) rightly deleted the addition by the Ld. AO on the basis of probable suspicious transactions without any definite finding and suspicious transactions did not mention the name of the assessee. Therefore, the said case was also reopened on the basis of similar report from the investigation wing containing probable names though in respect of different persons. Consequently, we quash the reopening of assessment by allowing ground nos.1 and 3.
4. Since, we have quashed the reopening of assessment by allowing ground nos. 1&3, the other grounds raised by the assessee are not adjudicated and left open to be decided if the need arises for the same in future .
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )
Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Page | 10
ITA No. 88/KOL/2026
Santosh Kumar Rungta; A.Y. 2019-20
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT,
5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
True Copy//
Asst. Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata