AMIT GOYAL,FARIDABAD V. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

ITA 5116/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Goyal, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(1), Faridabad, regarding the reopening of his assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and subsequent additions made under section 68. The appellant argued that the AO lacked jurisdiction for reopening the assessment and that the additions made were unjustified. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the assessment process, particularly the lack of adequate opportunity given to the appellant to present his case, and thus remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313996 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM MANOHAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK GOYAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.5116/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Amit Goyal, vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), 180, Kaurali Road, Faridabad/NFAC Village and PO Tigaon, Faridabad (PAN: AIUPG077G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashok Goyal, CA Respondent by : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065208199(1), order dated 29.05.2024 on the following grounds:- 1) That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the facts that the AO had no jurisdiction for reopening the assessment u/s. 148 and the order passed u/s. 148 of the Act is null and void ab initio. 2) That CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO of making addition of Rs. 32,44,500/- on account of cash deposit in ICICI Bank and OBC Bank (now Punjab National Bank). 2 | P a g e 3) That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in making the aforesaid addition u/s. 68 and initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4) That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not setting aside the order of the AO for not following principles of natural justice by not giving the proper time / opportunity to the appellant. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application for Condonation of Delay stating therein that the delay was occurred due to inadvertent mistake of his Accountant, as a result thereof, the deadline for filing the appeal was missed. It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor due to any lack of diligence on his part. Hence, it was requested to condone the disputed delay. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that AO has not given proper opportunity to canvass his case, while framing the assessment and also Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by affirming the action of the AO and had not adjudicated the same on merits of the case. Hence, it was requested by the Ld.AR that the issues in dispute may be remitted back to the file of 3 | P a g e the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the aforesaid request of the Ld. AR. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld.AR that proper opportunity was not given by the AO to the assessee while framing the assessment and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the action of the AO and even not decided the appeal on merits of the case. In view of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesee. Assessee is also directed through Ld.AR to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06.05.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "