DEVENDRA KUMAR,NOIDA V. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA 5784/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Davendra Kumar against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Learned Assessing Officer concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The appellant contested the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through a notice under Section 148, based on ex-parte information. The appellant argued that the reassessment was initiated without proper reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not been given a fair opportunity to present his case and thus decided to set aside the previous orders and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716779 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5784/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Davendra Kumar, H. No. 52, Vill. Barola, Sector 49, Noida, U.P. PIN: 201 301 Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi PAN: CAIPK0485M (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal by the assessee is against order dated 12.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of order dated 22.03.2022 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act passed for assessment year 2016-17. Appellant by N o n e Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of hearing 19.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5784/Del./2024 2. Brief facts of case are that as per information, the assessee had received interest of Rs.58,03,698/- during financial year 2015-16 corresponding to assessment year 2016-17. The assessee did not file return of income. Ld. AO reopened the case with necessary approval/sanction. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 was issued. The assessee did not respond to notice. Ld. AO issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2021. No response was received to the notice. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 22.03.2022 made addition of Rs.58,03,698. Against order dated 22.03.2022 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2024. 3. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in upholding validity of re-assessment proceeding initiated under section 147 through issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") and not quashing the same on the ground of being illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act (\"Reassessment Proceedings\") having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts and without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, illegal. bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Reassessment Proceedings having been initiated merely on the basis of ex-parte information received, without any independent application of Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5784/Del./2024 mind by the AO to such information and forming opinion thereof, is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reassessment order is illegal and bad in law, since: (a) reasons recorded have not been communicated along with the notice; and (b) proper and valid sanction for issuance of notice was not obtained under section 151 of the Act. On Merits 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the AO/CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that payment received on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land constituted revenue receipt taxable under the Act 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/CIT(A) erred in not providing benefit under section 10(37) of the Act qua the receipt on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. 4. In alternate and without prejudice to the above, the AO/ CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the statutory deduction under section 57 of the Act. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment order suffers from vice of computation defects including denial of credit qua pre-paid taxes. 6. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging interest under sections 234A, 234B of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in mechanically vaguely initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act.” 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/assessee. In grounds of appeal, it is mentioned that Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding re- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5784/Del./2024 assessment order illegally. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated on basis of ex parte information. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that assessee had not appeared before departmental authorities. 6. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee failed to appear in departmental assessment and appellate proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 12.07.2024 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 22.03.2022 of Ld. AO. The appellant in grounds of appeal has challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act through notice under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of ex parte information. 7. In view of above material facts in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to set aside orders dated 12.07.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) and dated 22.03.2022 of Ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after affording fair opportunity of hearing to appellant/assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19TH August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25 August, 2025. Mohan Lal Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 5784/Del./2024 Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "