Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Subscription Books Submit Post
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax Ledger Name Alone Cannot Establish Undisclosed Property Investment: ITAT Delhi Goods and Services Tax GST Show Cause Notice Cannot Be Quashed Before Adjudication: Delhi HC Income Tax Section 143(1) Intimation Issued After Scrutiny Notice is invalid: ITAT Lucknow Goods and Services Tax Restored GST Registrations Render Departmental Appeals Infructuous: GSTAT Hyderabad Income Tax Section 54 Deduction allowed for Construction on Wife-Owned Plot: ITAT Chennai Corporate Law Section 10A Barred Default Excluded from ₹1 Crore CIRP Threshold: NCLT Mumbai Service Tax Karnataka HC Restores Service Tax Case of Ivyakrest Pre-School on 10% Deposit Goods and Services Tax Multiple Tax Periods Cannot Be Clubbed in One GST Assessment Order: Andhra Pradesh HC
Income Tax

Ledger Name Alone Cannot Establish Undisclosed Property Investment: ITAT Delhi

By CA Sandeep Kanoi Income Tax Judiciary October 9, 2026
Share:

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 15216
Case Name
Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number
Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2017-18
Courts
All ITAT, ITAT Delhi
Upgrade to Premium to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (

Summary: The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal for AYs 2017–18 to 2019–20 and Vijay Kumar Agarwal for AY 2016–17, while dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018–19. The appeals arose from a common CIT(A) order following search proceedings in the Ravinder Oil Group. For Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal’s AY 2017–18, the Assessing Officer relied on a laptop ledger titled “Sanjeev Property” and added ₹59,76,070 as unexplained investment under Section 69A, applying Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after granting telescoping against income generated from the group businesses, but the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment itself.

The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds by following National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, since non-issuance of the statutory notice could be verified from the assessment record. The assessee demonstrated that, through an online reply dated 18 May 2023, he had requested the Assessing Officer to treat his original return as the return furnished in response to Section 148 because the XML/JSON utility for electronic filing was unavailable. The Assessing Officer had also taken cognizance of the income disclosed in that return when computing assessed income. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty bound to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before completing reassessment. Following ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon and PCIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd., it quashed the reassessment under Sections 144/147 for AY 2017–18. The same reasoning applied to AY 2018–19, and the Revenue’s challenge to the CIT(A)’s deletion of additions became infructuous. Vijay Kumar Agarwal had similarly enclosed his earlier return and requested its adoption through an online reply; his reassessment for AY 2016–17 was also quashed for non-issuance of the mandatory notice. The remaining grounds in these appeals were left academic.

For Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal’s AY 2019–20, the dispute concerned alleged cash payments aggregating ₹14,62,000 recorded in “Sanjeev Tally”. Although the CIT(A) had already deleted the addition through telescoping, the Tribunal examined whether the payments could be attributed to the assessee as undisclosed investment. The registered sale deed showed that the property at Plot No.18, Reena Vihar, Hapur was purchased by Smt. Richa Aggarwal from Smt. Renu Gupta. Since the assessee was neither buyer nor seller, merely finding cash-payment entries in a ledger bearing his name did not justify adding the amount in his hands. The Tribunal allowed the relevant grounds, leaving the others academic. Its order was pronounced on 9 September 2026.

Cases Discussed

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

The captioned appeals bearing ITA Nos.3888, 3889 & 3890/Del/2025 filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal for Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 respectively whereas the Revenue has filed appeal in ITA No.4094/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19. Apart from this, another appeal in ITA No.3878/Del/2025 filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal for Assessment Year 2016- 17. All these appeals are filed against the common order passed by ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida dated 15.04.2025.

2. All these appeals are having common issues, therefore, they are taken together and decided by a common order. First we take appeal filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal for Assessment Year: 2017-18 in ITA No. 3888/Del/2025.

ITA No. 3888/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18

in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 16.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.15,35,890/-. A search and seizure action was carried out in the case of the Ravinder Oil Group of cases. The assessee being one of the member of said group and search was also carried out in his case on 02.06.2022. Consequent upon the search, the case was centralized with the DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.03.2023 after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority which was duly served upon the assessee. The AO observed that assessee has not filed any ITR in response to notice u/s 148 and based on the details found in the Laptop, containing one ledger account having Title “Sanjeev Property” has concluded that assessee has purchased certain properties for which the cash payments were made of Rs.1,33,90,000/-. After considering the submissions made by assessee has treated the amount of Rs. 59,76,070/- as the cash investments made in acquisition of the property as unexplained in the year under appeal and made addition in the same as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act and further invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act to charge higher rate of tax. Accordingly, the total income was assessed at Rs.75,11,960/-.

4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide consolidated order passed in Assessment Year 2017-18 to 2019- 20 and 2022-23 though had held that assessee has made cash payments for the acquisition of properties, however, after allowing the benefit of telescoping out of the income generated from the business of M/s Ravinder Oil & Ginning Mills, J.K. Trading Company has deleted the additions.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal.

6. During the course of hearing vide application filed dated 18.06.2026, the assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:-

Ground No.5 2017-18 and A.Y 2018-19 The reassessment order framed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and bad in law, as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued prior to the completion of the reassessment proceedings. The entire reassessment is consequently liable to be quashed.

Ground No.6 A.Y 2018-19 and A.Y 2019-20 That the notice issued under Section 148 is bad in law as the alleged properties reflected in the seized “Property” ledger do not belong to the appellant as per the registered purchase deeds / seized property documents. That in absence of ownership or corroborative material linking the appellant with any asset the reopening and consequential addition are bad in law and liable to be quashed / deleted.

Ground No.7 A.Y 2017 18 A.Y 2018-19, A.Y 2019-20 That the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition solely on the basis of alleged third- party digital material, namely “Sanjeev Tally”, found from M/s Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills and not from the premises or books of the assessee, without recording mandatory satisfaction under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 or establishing any live nexus with the assessee. In absence of the assessee’s name in the Panchnama and any independent corroboration, the addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.

7. The Assessee submitted that these additional grounds of appeal are legal in nature and requires no verification since, they to the root of the matter, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) requested for the admission of the same.

8. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the additional grounds of appeal taken by the assessee and submits in these grounds which requires verification from the AO and thus, requested for the report from the AO.

9. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that in these grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) which is verifiable from the assessment order itself as the AO himself has observed that no notice was issued as no ITR was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra), the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are admitted for adjudication.

10. Coming to additional ground No.5, wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the AO in passing the order u/s 144/147 of the Act without issue of notice u/s 143(2) though the assessee has filed the return of income.

11. Before us, the Ld. AR submits that the assessee vide letter dated 18.05.2023 filed before the AO explained that the return could not be filed electronically in response to notice u/s 148 as the Utility for filing the return electronically was not available. Therefore, a request was made to treat the return filed u/s 139 of the Ct as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. Copy of the letter so filed through online portal is placed at pages 62-64 of the PB. The Ld. AR submits that when the returns were filed alongwith the letter, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) should be issued before passing the order u/s 144/147 of the Act. He thus, submits that the order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) though the assessee had filed the return of income is bad in law be quashed. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following judgments:

12. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submits that the AO in the order has categorically observed that no return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, therefore, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s 143(2) before completion of the order. He prayed accordingly.

13. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the reassessment order, it is observed that in para 3 of the order, the AO had observed that no return was filed in response to notice u/s 148 issued on 27.10.2023. However, the assessee had demonstrated before us, that he has filed the return of income alongwith the reply filed on 18.05.2023 through online, clearly stating that the return could not be filed in absence of Utility XML/JSON for filing the return online portal, therefore, a request was made to treat the return filed u/s 139(1) as the return in response to notice u/s 148. It is further observed that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order while computing the income in para 6 of the order has taken the income disclosed in ITR at Rs.15,38,890/-. Once the AO has taken cognizance of the income declared by the assessee and the assessee has been able to demonstrate that the return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, reassessment order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid order. The AO was duty bound to issue notice u/s 143(2) to assume jurisdiction before proceed to complete the reassessment proceedings and non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) is fatal which has resulted the consequent reassessment proceedings as invalid. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Courts in the case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. reported in [2016] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi). In view of the above discussion, we hold that reassessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid order and thus, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the additional ground of appeal No.5 taken by the assessee is allowed.

14. Since we have allowed the additional ground of appeal No.5 taken by the assessee, the remaining grounds of appeal are become academic and thus not adjudicated.

15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed.

ITA No.3889/Del/2024(Assessee’s appeal) and ITA No. 4094/Del/2025 For AY 2018-19 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal

16. The facts in this year are the same with AY 2017-18 wherein the additional grounds of appeal taken by the assesse challenging the action of the AO in passing the order u/s 147 as invalid in absence of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. Since, there is no change in the circumstances, therefore, by following the order observations made in AY 2017-18 in ITA No.3888/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18 which are applied mutatis mutandis, we hold that the order passed in the year under appeal u/s 144/147 dated 20.10.2023 without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act though the assessee has filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 is invalid and thus, quashed. Since we have allowed the legal ground of appeal, the other grounds of appeal become academic.

17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed.

18. Since, we have already quashed the reassessment order passed and allowed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue wherein the revenue has challenged the deletion of additions by ld. CIT(A), become infructuous and thus, dismissed.

19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

ITA No. 3890/Del/2025 For AY 2019-20 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal

20. With respect to ground of appeal No. 1 & 2, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the total addition of Rs.14,62,000/- was made for the year under appeal by alleging that these payments were found noted in the Sanjeev Tally in ledger account titled as “Sanjeev Property”. As per the assessee there are two entries of Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.04.2018 and of Rs.4,62,000/- on 19.04.2019. In both the payments, it is mentioned ‘Ashu Property AD KL Mill’. It was submitted by the assessee that it referred locatin of the said property which is situated at Plot No.18, Village Acheja, Reena Vihar, Hapur behind the KL Oil Mills and was purchased by Smt. Richa Aggarwal and not by the assessee. The relevant necessary copy of registered sale deed is placed at PB pages 66 to 82. Ld. AR submits that since the said property was not purchased by the assessee, therefore, no addition could should be made in the hands of the assessee even it is held that the payments were made in cash out of the undisclosed income. He thus, requested that the addition made be deleted.

21. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submits that the document was found in the possession of the assessee and the title of the ledger account was “Sanjeev Property” therefore, it cannot be said that these payments were not made by the assessee. He, therefore, requested that the additions were rightly made in the hands of the assessee though the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same by giving benefit of telescoping, however, as per the Ld. CIT-DR the amounts noted therein were paid by the assessee and, therefore, addition should be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.

22. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) though had held that the payment were made by the assessee however has deleted the additions after providing the benefit of telescoping out of the income generated from the unaccounted for transactions carried out by the assessee group and finally no addition was sustained. Before us, the issue under challenge was whether this payment could be held as undisclosed income of the assessee or not. It is observed that the said payments were made with respect to the property situated at backside of KN Mill. As per the registered sale deed, the property titled as Plot No.18, Reena Vihar, Hapur was purchased by Smt. Richa Aggarwal and not by the assessee. The copy of the title deed is placed at PB pages 66 to 88. This property was sold by Smt. Renu Gupta wife of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta and the sale deed was registered on 15.05.2019. Since, the assessee is neither the buyer not the seller, therefore, merely because some entry of cash payment was found recorded in the Sanjeev Tally having ledger name of the assessee, the same cannot be held as undisclosed investment of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the same could not be added in the hands of the assessee. Thus, we allow the grounds of appeal No.1 & 2 of the assessee.

23. Since, we have allowed the grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee, the other grounds become academic, thus no adjudicated.

ITA No. 3878/Del/2025 for AY 2016-17 in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal,

24. During the course of hearing vide application filed dated 18.06.2026, the assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:-

“Additional Ground No. 5

The reassessment order framed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17 is void ab initio and bad in law, as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued prior to the completion of the reassessment proceedings. The entire reassessment is consequently liable to be quashed.

Additional Ground No. 6 That the reasons recorded are bad in law and reflect non-application of mind, as the appellant’s alleged share in the construction expensed has been arbitrarily taken at 1,95,75,326/-without any ownership ratio, formula, working or payment trail. On the basis of registered ownership, the appellant’s correct share is only 46,95,998/-which is below the threshold of ₹50,00,000/- prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) for reopening beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2023 is barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed.

Additional Ground No. 7

That the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition of ₹1,86,00,000/- solely on the basis of alleged third-party digital material, namely “Sanjeev Tally”, found from M/s Ravindra Oil and Ginning Mills and not from the premises or books of the assessee, without recording mandatory satisfaction under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 or establishing any live nexus with the assessee. In absence of the assessee’s name in the Panchnama and any independent corroboration, the addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.”

25. The Assessee submitted that these additional grounds of appeal are legal in nature and requires no verification since, they to the root of the matter, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) requested for the admission of the same.

26. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the additional grounds of appeal taken by the assessee and submits in these grounds which requires verification from the AO and thus, requested for the report from the AO.

27. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that in these grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) which is verifiable from the assessment order itself as the AO himself has observed that no notice was issued as no ITR was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra), the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are admitted for adjudication.

28. Coming to additional ground No.5, wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the AO in passing the order u/s 144/147 of the Act without issue of notice u/s 143(2) though the assessee has filed the return of income.

29. Before us, the Ld. AR submits that the assessee vide letter dated 17.05.2023 filed before the AO vide online reply on 18.05.2023, stated that in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the return could not be filed electronically as the Utility for filing the return electronically was not available. Therefore, a request was made to treat the return filed u/s 139 of the Ct as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and a copy of ITR filed was enclosed. Copy of the letter so filed through online portal is placed at pages 2-4 of the PB. The Ld. AR submits that when the returns were filed alongwith the letter, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) should be issued before passing the order u/s 144/147 of the Act. He thus, submits that the order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) though the assessee had filed the return of income is bad in law be quashed. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following judgments:

  • Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC). • PR. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2016] 64 taxmann.
  • ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon – Supreme Court of India.
  • Mukesh Khurana v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 223 (Delhi Trib.) [21-03- 2025]
  • Vinod Kumar Kasturchand Golechha v. ITO [2023] 174 taxmann.com 912 (ITAT Mumbai).
  • Major Suresh Yadav v. ITO, 153 taxmann.com 159 (ITAT Delhi)
  • ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay HC).
  • Principal CIT v. Kamla Devi Sharma [2018] 96 taxmann.com 659 (Rajasthan HC).
  • Smt. Amina Ismil Rangari v. ITO, Ward 17(2)4 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 160 (ITAT Mumbai Bench.
  • Delhi Kalyan Samiti v. Assessee, ITA Nos. 1770-1772/Del/2010 (ITAT Delhi) [04.03.2015].
  • M/s Bhaval Synthetics (India) Ltd. v. DCIT, 2020 (10) TMI 1359 (ITAT Jaipur.
  • Ambika Uniyal v. ITO, Ward-1(4)(1), Rishikesh (ITAT Dehradun, DB Bench).

30. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submits that the AO in the order has categorically observed that no return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, therefore, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s 143(2) before completion of the order. He prayed accordingly.

31. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the reassessment order it is observed that in para 3 of the order, the AO though had observed that no return was filed in response to notice u/s 148 issued on

30.03.2023. However, the assessee had demonstrated before us, that he has filed the return of income alongwith the reply filed on 18.05.2023 through online clearly stating that the return could not be filed in absence of Utility XML/JSON for filing the return online portal, therefore, a request was made to treat the return filed u/s 139(1) as the return in response to notice u/s 148. It is further observed that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order while computing the income in para 6 of the order has taken the income disclosed in ITR at Rs.16,74,410/-. Once the AO has taken cognizance income declared by the assessee and the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, the order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid order. The AO was duty bound to issue notice u/s 143(2) to assume jurisdiction for passing the reassessment order and non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) is fatal which has resulted the consequent reassessment proceedings as invalid. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Courts in the case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. reported in [2016] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi). In view of the above discussion, we hold that reassessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid order and thus, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the additional ground of appeal No.5 taken by the assessee is allowed.

32. Since we have allowed the additional ground of appeal No.5 taken by the assessee, the remaining grounds of appeal are become academic and thus not adjudicated.

33. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is allowed.

34. In the final result, ITA Nos. 3888 to 3890/Del/2025 in the case of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal for AY 2017-18 to 2019-2020 respectively, are allowed and ITA No. 4094/Del/2025 of the revenue is dismissed. The ITA No. 3878/Del/2025 in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal for AY 2016-17 is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2026.

Advertisement
Filed under

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Name: CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,423
View full profile →
More from CA Sandeep Kanoi

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Related Articles in Income Tax
Section 54 Deduction allowed for Construction on Wife-Owned Plot: ITAT Chennai

Section 54 Deduction allowed for Construction on Wife-Owned Plot: ITAT Chennai

October 9, 2026
Defective Section 274 Notices Invalidate Section 271AAB Penalty: ITAT Delhi

Defective Section 274 Notices Invalidate Section 271AAB Penalty: ITAT Delhi

October 9, 2026
ITAT Delhi Deletes Section 271AAB Penalty Due to Vague Show-Cause Notice

ITAT Delhi Deletes Section 271AAB Penalty Due to Vague Show-Cause Notice

October 9, 2026
No Section 271AAB Penalty for Unspecified Statutory Charge: ITAT Chennai

No Section 271AAB Penalty for Unspecified Statutory Charge: ITAT Chennai

October 9, 2026
Vague Penalty Notices Under Sections 270A and 271AAB Invalid: ITAT Chennai

Vague Penalty Notices Under Sections 270A and 271AAB Invalid: ITAT Chennai

October 9, 2026
CSR Donations Eligible for Section 80G Deduction: Bombay HC Ruling Left Undisturbed by SC

CSR Donations Eligible for Section 80G Deduction: Bombay HC Ruling Left Undisturbed by SC

October 9, 2026