Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Puran Store,Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 10 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'F', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
And
SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5590/Del/2025
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Puran Store, WZ-176, Vs Assistant Commissioner of
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Income Tax, Circle-43(1),
New Delhi-110059 Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AABFP1207D
Assessee by Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv. &
Ms. RA Thonpinao Thangal, Adv.
Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 23.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.09.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "Act"] for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 147 of the Act.ITA No.5590/Del/2025
Puran Store
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld CIT (A)] has grossly erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were bad in law.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. AO') has grossly erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of section 151A of the Act are bad in law.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 1448 is bad in law.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Assessing Officer has to be adjudged from the standpoint of the reasons contained in notice u/s 148A(b) which forms basis of formation of opinion with respect to escapement of income. The opinion cannot be one of the changing hues or sought to be shored upon fresh reasonings or a felt need to make further enquiries or undertake an exercise of verification.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. Assessing Officer could not have made an addition in respect of an issue different from the allegation in the notice u/s 148A(b) without making addition on the solitary issue on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings were initiated."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was issued notice under section 148A(b) seeking explanation for the cash deposits of Rs 1,58,80,000/- made in the bank accounts of the assessee. The Page 2 of 5 ITA No.5590/Del/2025 Puran Store assessee furnished its explanation and explained that same is on account of cash sales and matches the figures from VAT returns. The Assessing Officer however passed the order under section 148A(d) considering the cash deposits of Rs 1,58,80,000/- as unexplained. Subsequently, the AO considering the reply of the assessee, found an amount of Rs 2,27,80,079/- as unexplained cash expenses u/s 148A(d). The AO thereafter, passed the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) making an addition of Rs 2,27,80,079/- on account of unexplained cash expenses.
4. Before us, the ld. counsel argued that the reasons for reopening the assessment was cash deposit, however the addition was made by treating the amount as unexplained cash expenses. The ld. AR argued that the notice u/s 148 issued for one reason and reassessment made on another reason is not permissible under law and relied on the following decisions:-
1. Usha Rani Girdhar vs Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Delhi & Ors.in WP(C) No. 16090 of 2022 judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court
2. Catchy Prop-Build (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in WP(C) No. 13734 of 2022 judgment dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
3. M/s Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr in WP(C) No. 11601 of 2024 judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Hon' ble Delhi High Court.
4. Excel Commodity and Derivative vs UOI in APOT No. 132 of 2022 judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Hon' ble Calcutta High Court Page 3 of 5 ITA No.5590/Del/2025 Puran Store
5. Aadi India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors in WP. (C) No. 11935 of 2023 judgment dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
6. ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors in WP (C) No. 3804 of 2023 judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and of the Ld. CIT(A).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has show caused the assessee u/s 148A(b) for issuance of notice u/s 148, on the issue of cash deposits of Rs 1,58,80,0000/-. The AO however, upon submission of reply of the assessee, considered an amount of Rs 2,27,80,079/- as unexplained cash expenses, which is diametrically opposite to the issues which was raised in the show-cause. Further the reassessment was made considering the amount of Rs 2,27,80,079/- as unexplained cash expenses. The same is not permissible under the law. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that in such circumstances the impugned order u/s 147 travels beyond the scope of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and is liable to be quashed. Similarly, the hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Excel Commodity and Derivative vs UOI (supra) held that where order u/s 148A(d) is not based on reasons for which notice u/s 148A(b) was issued, the said order becomes illegal and unsustainable. Page 4 of 5 ITA No.5590/Del/2025
Puran Store Following the aforesaid judicial precedents as cited by the assessee, we hold that impugned order u/s 148A(d) as well as order u/s 147/143(3) is invalid as it travels beyond the scope of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and is therefore liable to be quashed. The grounds of appeal is therefore allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No.5590/Del/2025 is allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 10.03.2026
f{x~{tÜ
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Page 5 of 5