AJAY PRATAP RAMAN,MEERUT V. ITO,WARD-2(1)(5), MEERUT

ITA 4601/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ajay Pratap Raman, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeal), Thriruvanantpuram, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues in the appeal were the alleged lack of service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the claim that the AO and CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard regarding an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 to his income, which was treated as unexplained cash deposit under section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal noted the absence of representation from the appellant despite notice and proceeded ex-parte, ultimately deciding to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31682 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 139(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 4601/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 AJAY PRATAP RAMAN, 864/A, RAMBAL PRADHAN WALI GALI, OLD VIJAY NAGAR, SECTOR-9, GHAZIABAD -201001 (PAN: AEXPR0574D) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.02.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeal), Thriruvanantpuram dated 08.07.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- 1. That no notice us 148 was ever served upon the assessee, therefore, assessment framed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is against the facts and law. 2. That the AO as well as CIT(A) has not provided proper and reasonable opportunity being heard to the assessee. Therefore, addition made by AO of Rs. 10,00,000/- and confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law. 2 | P a g e 3. That the AO is in error treated cash deposited in bank as unexplained cash deposited u/s. 69 of the Act of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the amount so deposited was out of explained funds and CIT(A) also in error in confirming the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, from the system ITBA, a perusal of the cash transaction details revealed that the assessee had made cash deposits of RS. 10,00,000/- in his bank account with bank of Baroda, Ghaziabad during demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. AO further noted that assessee has not filed return of income for the AY 2017-18 voluntarily as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 10.3.2018, requiring to furnish the return of income for AY 2017-18 on or before 31.3.2018. But the assessee did not furnish any reply to explain the cash deposits. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act at Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of non-prosecution and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me 5. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice, therefore, I am proceeding exaparte qua the assessee. I note that it was the contention of the Assessee made in the grounds of appeal that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act was ever served upon the assessee and also AO and Ld. CIT(A) both have not provided proper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh 3 | P a g e consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for which the Ld. DR has no objection. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21/02/2025. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "