ASHOK GOEL,DELHI V. ACIT, DELHI

ITA 662/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ashok Goel, the Director of SRM group, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, which upheld an assessment order deemed time-barred and confirmed certain additions to the assessee's income. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses, including the dismissal of the appeal due to non-prosecution without addressing the substantive legal and technical issues raised. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) was influenced by the need for a thorough examination of all grounds of appeal, particularly those concerning the legality of the assessment order and the additions made based on seized documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474947 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd [2023] 149 taxinan.com399/293 Taxman 141/459 ITR 212, Trilok Chand Chaudhary ITA No. 5870/D/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJU KUMARI
• Keywords: Document seized
• Section: 143(1); 153; 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.662/Del./2024, A.Y. 2010-11 Ashok Goel N-49, 2nd Floor, Panchsheel Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi PAN: AEKPG3958B Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28, Income Tax Office, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sanju Kumari, Advocate Respondent by Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/02/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2010-11 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law the order passed by the CIT (A)-29, New Delhi is contrary to the facts and bad in law. ITA No.662 /Del/2024 Ashok Goel 2 2. That the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding assessment order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the office of the AO was void ab initio being time barred as the same has been passed after the expiry of limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order is bound to be quashed on this ground itself considering the assessment order is time barred. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions of the appellant that were duly uploaded to the Income Tax portal on 21.12.2023 and passed the order on 27.12.2023. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5,15,000/- based on seized document A-1, R-4 Page 25 alleging the same as loan given by the assessee out of undisclosed sources and interest earned thereon. 5. That without prejudice the above addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee in as assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the above referred document was seized in the search of Sh. Pradeep Goel for which a separate panchnama was drawn, as per proposition of law settle by Delhi ITAT in the case of Trilok Chand Chaudhary ITA No. 5870/D/2017. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and inday as accounted not justified in confirming the additional on remuneration received from Shree Raj Mahal Jewelers based on disclosure made in Sofreceivel sustainable as the addition is not based for an Incriminating material found during search and the assessment for the relevant assessment year is unabated. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd [2023] 149 taxinan.com399/293 Taxman 141/459 ITR 212. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, after any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier.” ITA No.662 /Del/2024 Ashok Goel 3 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed his original Income Tax Return (hereinafter ‘ITR’) on 10.01.2011 declaring income of Rs.12,48,327/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). The assessee is the Director of the group companies of SRM group which was searched under section 132 of the Act on 15.10.2013 by the Income Tax Department. Consequent to the search operations on the assessee, the assessment proceedings, in this case, were initiated under section 153A of the Act. In response to the notice under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his ITR declaring income of Rs.12,48,327/- (as declared in the original ITR). 3.1 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a Settlement Application under section 245C(1) of the Act. However, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter, the ‘ITSC’), vide its order dated 29.01.2018 passed under section 245D(4) of the Act rejected the assessee’s Settlement Application for AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 on the reasoning that the assessee had failed to make full and true disclosure of his income. Consequent to the rejection of the assessee’s Settlement Application, of the relevant year, by the ITSC, the assessment proceedings were resumed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’). It is evident from the assessment order that the AO, based on the incriminating document seized during the search, inferred that the assessee had made cash advance of Rs.5,00,000/- on annual interest of 3.00%. Therefore, the AO taxed the ITA No.662 /Del/2024 Ashok Goel 4 unexplained advance along with the consequential interest thereon aggregating to Rs.5,15,000/-. Further, the AO also taxed the additional income of Rs.4,00,000/-; i.e. unaccounted remuneration income received from Shri Raj Mahal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., offered in the assessee’s Settlement Application. Consequentially, the assessment was completed at income of Rs.21,63,330/- as against the returned income of Rs.12,48,327/-. 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution after providing 16 opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee (as detailed in para 4 of the impugned order). 4. On specific query by us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter ‘AR’) admitted consistent noncompliance before the first appellate authority. However, she drew our attention that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the technical and legal grounds taken before him. She prayed for setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). To which, the Ld. Departmental Representative (hereinafter, the ‘DR’) seemed in agreement. 5. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material available on the record. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. However, he has not decided each ground of appeal; in particular the technical and legal grounds. It is evident from the perusal ITA No.662 /Del/2024 Ashok Goel 5 of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. 6. In view thereof and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding each ground of appeal taken in the Form-35 before him by speaking order. We are refraining from making any comment on merit of the case. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 24 February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:24/02/2025 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. Sr. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "