BAL KRISHNA TIWARI,DELHI V. RAMAN CHAWLA, INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

ITA 3593/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bal Krishna Tiwari, the Assessee, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both of which were passed ex-parte. The Assessee, engaged in the business of a petrol pump, argued that the orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the cash sales, which could substantiate the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal considered the Assessee's request for additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and found merit in allowing the appeal and remanding the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708804 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPESH JAIN; SHAMMI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3593/Del/2024 Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3593/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Bal Krishna Tiwari H No. 8774 MultaniDhanda, Gali No. 4, Paharganj, New Delhi PAN: ADMPT6520H Vs. Raman Chawla, Income Tax Officer, Ward 63(4) Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv& Sh. Shammi Kapoor, Adv and Sh. Shauarya Jain, CA Revenue by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 10/06/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 19/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 10/06/2024 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10/06/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 2 ITA No. 3593/Del/2024 Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee. Further submitted that the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. The ld. Counsel also submitted the Assessee is engaged in the business of petrol pump and sales of petrol and diesel are generally made in cash, thus source of the cash is could be well established, therefore, to substantiate the said claim the Assessee filed an application for production of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963,accordingly, sought for allowing the application as well as the present Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities and not proved the source of cash deposit by producing cogent evidence. The Application filed by the Assessee Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 is liable to be rejected as the Assessee has not complied with the conditions prescribed under Rule 29 of the said Rules. Thus, sought for dismissal of the application for additional evidence as well as appeal of the Assessee. 3 ITA No. 3593/Del/2024 Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. ITO 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and has not produced the documents to prove the source of cash deposit. It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee is running petrol pump and sales of petrol and diesel are generally made in cash, thus source of the cash is could be well established. The Assessee has also filed an application under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 for admission of additional evidence and contended that those documents could not be produced before the Lower Authorities as sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the Assessee. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the application for production of additional evidence filed by the Assessee. Since, the assessment order is also passed ex-parte, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to frame de-novo assessment in accordance with lawafter providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate and produce any/all documents in support of his claim. 4 ITA No. 3593/Del/2024 Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. ITO 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th July , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 18.07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI "