Case Law Details
Grish Roy Pandit Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The appeal was filed against the order dated 31.08.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015–16, arising from an assessment completed under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions, non-faceless issuance of notice under Section 148, addition of ₹1 crore as unexplained income, and violation of principles of natural justice.
The case originated from information flagged under the Risk Management Strategy regarding a high-value transaction. The assessee had sold a one-fourth share in an immovable property for ₹1 crore but had not initially filed a return of income. Consequently, notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, followed by an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 when no response was received. The matter was thereafter handled by the Faceless Assessment Unit under Section 144B.
The assessee subsequently filed a belated return on 28.02.2023 declaring total income of ₹68,20,080 under long-term capital gains. During assessment, documents including sale deed, purchase deed, computation of income, and bank statements were furnished. On verification, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee’s share of ₹1 crore from the property sale was duly disclosed and the corresponding income had been offered to tax. No addition was made in the final assessment order, and income was accepted as declared.
Despite this, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority challenging, among other issues, the alleged addition of ₹1 crore. The appellate authority held that since no addition had been made by the Assessing Officer, there was no adverse tax consequence. Accordingly, the grounds relating to the alleged addition were considered infructuous and dismissed.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee did not appear despite notice, and the matter was decided ex parte after hearing the Departmental Representative and examining the record. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had eventually disclosed the transaction and that the Assessing Officer, after verification, had accepted the declared income without making any addition.
In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that the grievance raised by the assessee was misplaced, as no addition had been sustained in the assessment. Since no adverse tax effect arose, the appellate authority was correct in dismissing the grounds as infructuous. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authority.
Accordingly, all grounds raised by the assessee were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 31.08.2025 relevant to assessment year AY 2015-17, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) dated 2.2.2024 The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
1.That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of AO in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 and that too without 1 complying with mandatory statutory requirement of section 147 to 151A of the Act, more so when jurisdiction was not assumed as per law.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, that reopening of the impugned assessment and framing of impugned assessment order are bad in law and against the fact and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO that in this case order u/s. 148A(d), dated 5.4.2022 and notice u/s. 148, dated 5.4.2022 have not been issued in faceless manner in terms of CBDT Notification NO. S.O. 1466€/18/2022/F.No. 370142/16/2022. Therefore impugned assessment initiated vide notice u/s. 148, dated 5.4.2022 not on faceless manner is not in accordance with law and it is bad and void.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in treating a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-allegedly as income from undisclosed sources on the ground that assessee has made investment for sale/purchase of immovable property, which allegedly remained unexplained and that too by recording incorrect facts, findings and making allegations based on surmises and conjectures and without observing the principle of natural justice.
5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice.
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2015-16 despite having sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (being 1/4th share in an industrial plot at DLF Industrial Estate, Faridabad, jointly sold for Rs. 4 crore). Information of this high value transaction was flagged under the CBDT’s Risk Management Strategy (NMS). Accordingly, notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued on 23.2.2022, but as no reply was filed, order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 were issued on 5.4.2022. Subsequently, the case was assigned to the Faceless Assessment Unit u/s. 144B. The assessee filed his return belatedly on 28.2.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 68,20,080/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains. During assessment, several notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued; partial responses were received. The assessee submitted sale and purchase deeds, bank statement showing deposit of sale proceeds, and computation of income. On verification, it was found that the assessee’s share of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the sale consideration was duly reflected and taxable income offered. As the return was filed only after of notice u/s. 148 and income of Rs. 68,20,080/- from LTCG and interest was admitted, no further variation was proposed in income. Thus, total income was assessed at Rs. 68,20,080/-u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Against the above action, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by observing that since AO did not sustain any addition on this issue, hence, the grievance of the assessee is misplaced. Since no adverse tax effect has arisen, the grounds challenging the alleged addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was rendered infructuous and dismissed as such. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing. Hence, we are deciding the appeal exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Upon careful examination of the assessment records, we note that the assessee subsequently filed a return of income belatedly on 28.2.2023, in which the said sale transaction was duly disclosed. Alongwith the return, the assessee submitted the computation of income, copies of the registered sale deed, purchase deed evidencing ownership, and the relevant bank statement reflecting the deposit of the sale proceeds. The AO, after verification of these documents, ultimately treat Rs. 1 crore as unexplained income. No addition was made in the final assessment order under sections 147/143(3), as the income from the property transaction had already been duly offered to tax and accepted. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, it transpires that the AO did not sustain any addition on this issue, hence, the grievance of the assessee is misplaced. Since no adverse tax effect has arisen, the grounds challenging the alleged addition of Rs. 1 crore were rightly rendered infructuous and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and accordingly, we reject the grounds raised by the Assessee.
6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2026
Author Bio
