Ranbir Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In this case, the ITAT Delhi held that non-service of notice u/s 148 renders the entire reassessment invalid, irrespective of merits.
The Tribunal found that:
- Notice u/s 148 was sent to the assessee’s old office address, where he had already retired,
- The AO attempted service by affixture at an incorrect address, without verifying current whereabouts, and
- There was no proper or valid service of notice, which is a mandatory requirement.
The ITAT emphasized that:
- Issuance of notice is not enough – valid service is compulsory,
- The entire assessment was conducted behind the back of the assessee, and
- This amounted to a clear violation of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Tribunal:
- Quashed the reassessment proceedings u/s 147, and
- Allowed the appeal of the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 17.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. Facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the assessee was reopened, and notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee on 30.04.2010. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information that there were cash deposits/time deposits of Rs.16,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Since there was no response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and the subsequent show cause notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.16,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69C of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 14.12.2018 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.08.2024, i.e., with a delay of almost six years. The assessee explained that the assessment order was never served on him. As per the submissions of the assessee, even the notice u/s.148 of the Act was never served on him. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation and also considered merits of the addition, and dismissed the appeal on merits as well. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
