ANURAG MEHTA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(4), DELHI

ITA 2467/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anurag Mehta, the appellant, who contested an assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the assessee's income based on unexplained cash deposits and other credit entries during the demonetization period. The primary contention was the improper service of notices and the lack of a fair opportunity to present his case, which the appellant argued violated the principles of natural justice. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the improper service of notices and the lack of adequate opportunity to contest the additions made to his income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473190 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINITIN GULATI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 69; 69A

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 2467/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2467/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anurag Mehta, F-119, Vikas Puri, Delhi PIN: 1100 18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(4), Delhi PAN :AMXPM2884P (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA: ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2024of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) , Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 and arises out of the Assessee by ShriNitin Gulati,Advocate Respondent by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.02.2025 2 ITA No. 2467/Del/2024 assessment order dated 16.11.2019 under sections 144of the IT Act, [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act by ignoring the facts that the provision of section 144 are not applicable to the instant case. 2. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act by ignoring the facts that no show cause notice was served upon the assessee of the total income determined under this section. 3. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in la w and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act by ignoring the facts that the various notices etc as mentioned in the order were not served upon the assessee but on an irrelevant address belonging to the banker of the assessee i.e. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vikas Puri or upon some other irrelevant address/person. 4. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act resulting in demand of Rs. 82,10,172/- arbitrarily. capaciously and by ignoring the various facts and evidences etc. on record. 5. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.66,42,578/u/s 69A of the Act by holding cash of Rs. 23,91,500/-deposited into bank as income u/s 69 A of the Act and other credit entries amounting to Rs.42,51,078/- into the bank account also as income u/s 69A of the Act by ignoring the various facts and evidences. 6. The Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing an order u/s 144 of the Act by without giving reasonable time and opportunity and by ignoring the principle of natural justice in framing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 3 ITA No. 2467/Del/2024 7 That Learned commissioner upheld the above said additions without applying his mind. 8 The appellant craves leave to add, alter amend or forego any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, in the instant year, did not file any return of income. The Assessing Officer received an information that during the demonetization period, assessee had deposited a cash of Rs.16,78,000/- during the demonetization period, cash of Rs 7,12,000/- was deposited prior to demonetization period. The assessee also had other credit entries of Rs 42,51,078/- in its bank account. The assessee was required to furnish details of the source of cash deposits/credit entries which was not furnished by the assessee. In absence of any information/clarification, the Assessing Officer considered the total deposits of Rs.66,42,578 in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained deposit under Sections 69A of the Act vide assessment order passed under Section 144 dated 16.11.2910. 4. When the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(Appeals), he confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 6. The learned counsel of the assessee states that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act and no show-cause- 4 ITA No. 2467/Del/2024 notice was served upon the assessee. The learned counsel further states that issuance of various notices as mentioned in the assessment order were not served upon the assessee but on an irrelevant address belonging to the banker of the assessee and prayed for setting aside of the said order. It is also submitted that the appellate authority (Ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the additions without applying his mind. 7. Per contra, the Learned DR relied on the orders of the Authorities Below. 8. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the AO had issued notice on different address and the assessee was not served the notices properly. We also note that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) should have given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for deciding the issue before him. We are, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice, the issues involved in the assessment be set aside for fresh consideration to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to give adequate opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that the assessee shall furnish evidence and material before the Assessing Officer to substantiate its case. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5 ITA No. 2467/Del/2024 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27th February, 2025 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "