Income Tax Assessment Order Cannot Travel Beyond the Scope of the Show Cause Notice
The ITAT Delhi recently ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make an addition under a different section or on new grounds that were not mentioned in the show cause notice. Because the AO failed to follow due process, the addition under Section 69C was quashed, and the assessee won the appeal.
The present appeal has been filed by Robust Resorts and Hospitality LLP (Appellant) against the DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi (Respondent), in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Benches “A”, New Delhi, before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Shri Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member).
The case is related to the assessment year 2016-17 and was decided on November 12, 2025. The assessee challenged an order dated August 30, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi, in appeal No. 11108/2015-16, which originated from an appeal filed before it challenging an order dated March 21, 2022, passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi.
Background of Case:
- The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment based on information found during a survey on another company, i.e., M/s Mayfair Resorts India Private Limited.
- The reassessment was completed on March 21, 2022, by the Assessing Officer (AO), making an addition of Rs. 2.25 crore as unaccounted expenditure under Section 69C, claiming it was unexplained money spent by the assessee.
- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).
CIT(A)’s Decision
- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee: Rs. 53.05 lakh was already recorded in the books of the assessee, and Rs. 90 lakh was spent by one of the partners personally and not by the LLP.
- Therefore, only Rs. 82.82 lakh of the addition was upheld. Dissatisfied assessee with the action of CIT(A), then approached ITAT New Delhi, challenging the remaining addition.
Main Issue Before ITAT
Before ITAT New Delhi, the assessee served the following key arguments:
- The details mentioned in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the AO and that in the Assessment Order did not match. The notice asked the assessment to explain “bogus expenses” with Mayfair Resorts and the reason why the particular action should not be taken against it.
- But, in the final order, the assessing officer treated the same as “unexplained expenditure” under Section 69C, which was a new ground that was not mentioned in the SCN. Assessee flags this as a violation of the provisions of natural justice, because it was not given a fair chance to respond to this new allegation.
ITAT’s Findings
- The ITAT agreed with the arguments served by the assessee and noted that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) must clearly specify the exact issue and legal provision being invoked.
- The assessing officer (AO) does not have the authority to change the basis of addition in the final order without first informing the assessee.
- The assessee was not given a fair opportunity to defend its case.
- To announce its final decision, the tribunal cited an earlier Bombay High Court ruling in Vivek Jaishing Asher (2024), which highlighted that vague or inconsistent notices make assessments invalid.
- The ITAT also observed that Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) applies only when the assessee has actually incurred expenses from unknown sources.
- If the doubt is only about whether the expense is genuine or not, it should be handled under Section 37(1) (disallowance of business expenses), not under Section 69C.
- Therefore, the AO used the wrong legal provision and did not follow due process.
Final Decision
In the final decision, the ITAT New Delhi ruled that the AO went beyond the scope of the show cause notice. This was a violation of the provisions of natural justice and declared the assessment invalid. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
Citation: Robust Resorts & Hospitality LLP Vs DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi (ITAT Delhi); ITA No.4312/Del/2024; 12/11/2025; 2016-17
