DHANRAJ,FARIDABAD V. ITO WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 1034/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Dhanraj, against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the lack of notice to the appellant during the appeal and assessment proceedings, which prevented participation in the first appeal and assessment proceedings. The AO had re-opened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, noted unreported income, and added unexplained deposits under section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as no one from the assessee's side responded. The Tribunal, considering the procedural errors, decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31567 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 194A; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1034/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2014-15 DHANRAJ, House No. 536, Sector-45, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (PAN: ALFPR3352N) VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 23.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 24.10.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 20.10.2023, relating to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order ignoring the fact that no notice during the appeal as well as assessment proceedings was served on the appellant thereby he could not participate in 1st appeal and assessment proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act right from initiation to conclusion was void in as much as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was not served on the appellant. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the sum of Rs. 11074924/- assessed as interest income by the AO was incorrect on the facts, circumstances and the applicable law. 2 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO unnecessarily held the fixed deposit of Rs. 5000000/- purchased during the year attracted taxation u/s. 69A of the Act and further erred in ignoring the fact that the said fixed deposit was purchased out of sources available in his bank account. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO added the alleged cash deposit Rs. 3740000/- by the appellant in his bank account u/s. 69A of the Act and further erred in ignoring the fact that the alleged cash deposit was incorrect and whatsoever cash deposited was out of valid sources. 6. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO though assessed the interest income in the hands of the appellant yet the credit of TDS thereon Rs. 1096363/- was not allowed to him. 2. Brief facts of the case are assessee is an individual. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. As per the NMS information available, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The notices were issued & served to the assessee accordingly. The assessee had not filed his return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that an amount of Rs. 1,10,74,924/- was credited to assessee on account of interest u/s 194A of the Act on which TDS had also been deducted. Further, AO noted that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 37,40,000/- in his bank account and made time deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee was asked to explain the same, but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued. Therefore, the AO had added the interest income, amounting to Rs. 1,10,74,924/- , under the head income from other sources, to the total income of the assessee and AO further added the aggregate cash and time deposits, amounting to Rs. 87,40,000/-, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, to the total income of the assessee. Against the aforesaid action of the AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order 20.10.2023 has noted that nobody from the assessee has responded, hence, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 3 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that non-response by the assessee before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) was due to the fact that notices were sent at wrong email address. Hence, he prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee in order to canvass his case properly before the AO. 5. Ld. DR has no objection on the aforesaid proposition made by the Ld. AR for the assessee that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee in order to canvass its case properly before the AO. 6. Considering the grounds raised by the Assessee and in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Moreover, assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer in this regard. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24/10/2024. Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "