HARISH CHANDER DAGAR,NORTH EAST DELHI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

ITA 887/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harish Chander Dagar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal as not maintainable under Sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was regarding the jurisdiction and the legality of the assessment order dated 27.11.2019, which was challenged for being passed under the aforementioned sections without proper appreciation of the facts, particularly concerning the renewal of FDRs and the treatment of cash deposits and undisclosed interest income. The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to respond to notices due to technological unfamiliarity and illness, and thus decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360953 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHARY N.C. ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 887/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Harish Chander Dagar, VS. ITO, Ward 59(6), C-448A, Gali No. 19, Delhi Bhajanpura, Delhi – 53 (PAN: BASPD5276L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Sharma, CA Respondent by : Sh. Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.11.2023 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company as not maintainable, as per the provisions of Section 144/147 of the Act is erroneous and bad in law an on facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and thereby upholding the impugned assessment order dated 27.11.2019 without appreciating that the 2 | P a g e impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction, bad in law and deserves to be quashed since it was passed under section 144/147. Without appreciating the factual position as the Term deposits as pointed out to have been made was in fact the renewal of the FDR having been obtained in the earlier year. The assessee in question has filled a appeal with the Hon’ble CIT for the deposit of the cash of Rs. 45.70 lac and other source of income Rs. 9 lac for AY 2012-13 which has been decided against the assessee vide the order of the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29.11.2023. The assessee was not able to respond to the notices, as, he is not conversant with the technology and the consultation attending the affairs of the assessee did not him from that. The rule of the natural justice requires that he be given the opportunity. 3. The assessee in question has deposited the amount of Rs. 45.70 lacs on account of the receipt of the sale of agricultural land. This is evidenced by the copy of document evidencing the receipt of Rs. 37.50 lacs the balance amount was on account of the accumulate saving of part amounting to Rs. 820000/-. Further, an addition of Rs. 900934/- has been made as account of the interest income as undisclosed there is no undisclosed income of Rs. 900934/-. The amount in question has been taken without any basis, on the basis of unsubstantiated facts by the AO. The factual position is that in the 26AS, the amount of interest reflected is Rs. 450468/- whereas in the order giving reference to the 26AS the amount of interest has been mentioned as Rs. 900934/-, which is factually incorrect and hence need to be quashed and set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual had failed to file return of income. AO has received credible information through AIR module regarding deposit of cash during the year in the bank account of the assessee. Thus, the case of the assesee was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act by issuing a notice dated 30.03.2019. Later, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22.06.2019. As no return was filed even after that, scrutiny u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 27.11.2019 adding back the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 45,70,000/- in the bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. Further, in 3 | P a g e the absence of compliance and related evidences, undisclosed interest income of Rs. 9,00,934/- as per 26AS was also added back. Upon assessee’s appeal, CIT(A) noted the non-compliance of the assessee and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee prayed that due to illness of the assessee, proper representation could not be made before the authorities below. He prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to canvass the case properly before the AO. He also undertook that he will now represent the case diligently before the AO. Per contra, Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd May, 2025. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "