Sunita Salhotra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Case Background and Assessee’s Appeal
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, passed an order on 12/02/2025, in the case of Sunita Salhotra Vs. ITO, allowing the assessee’s appeal and quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, on the legal ground of limitation.
The appeal was filed by the Assessee, an individual, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31/07/2024. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of a response to the hearing notice, which the assessee attributed to not checking the email ID after forgetting the password.
The assessee’s original case was reopened under Section 148 of the Act, and the assessment was completed vide an order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act dated 24/05/2023, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,01,94,960/- as against the declared income of Rs. 3,60,790/-.
The grounds of appeal before the ITAT included challenging:
- The ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) for non-submission of a response to the hearing notice.
- The validity of the Section 148 notice, arguing the original notice dated 30/06/2021 was invalid and barred by limitation under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), leading to a second notice on 25/07/2022 after the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in the Ashish Agarwal case.
- The confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1,92,56,476/- from the sale of shares of M/s Goldline International Finvest Ltd. (GIFL), which was claimed to be exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act.
- The confirmation of an addition of Rs. 5,77,694/- under Section 69C of the Act on a presumptive basis.
- The confirmation of the action by the Assessing Officer (AO) to make additions based purely on an investigation report, third-party statements, and material gathered behind the back of the assessee without confrontation, violating the principles of natural justice.
- The invalidity and illegality of the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 24/05/2022, the order under Section 148A(d) dated 25/07/2022, and the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25/07/2022, on the basis that they should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), contrary to the amended provisions of Section 151A read with Section 144B of the IT Act.
ITAT’s Decision on the Legal Ground
