KRISHAN KUMAR, SONEPAT V. ITO Ward 2, SONEPAT

ITA 1068/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Krishan Kumar against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, which upheld an assessment order passed under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the jurisdiction and the validity of the notices served under sections 148 and 142(1), claiming improper service and lack of opportunity to present his case. The primary contention was the incorrect application of the law in sustaining an addition of Rs. 19,85,000 as unexplained money, attributed to cash deposits without considering cash withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and thus remanded the case for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131683 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1068/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar, H. No. 416, VPO Mehlana, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Sonipat (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BOLPK8182H Assessee by : Sh. Samyak Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 14.02.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 144, since the same was passed without ensuring proper service of the very first notice alleged to be issued u/s 148 of the Act. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 144, since the same was passed pursuant to the ITA No. 1068/Del/2023 Krishan Kumar 2 reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without the proper service of the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the reassessment. 1.3 That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in imposing penalty under section 27IF of the Act, since the income of the assessee was not above the basic exemption limit, hence he was not required to file any income tax return for the assessment year under consideration. 1.4 That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, since no notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act was validly served upon by the assessee. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 19,85,000/-, made by the assessing officer under section 69A alleging cash deposits made by the assessee in its bank account during the relevant financial year to the aforesaid extent as unexplained money of the appellant, without giving the benefits of cash withdrawals made by the assessee. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing the order under section 250 of the Act, since the same was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order passed by the Hon’ble CIT(A) is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice since the same is passed without taking into consideration the adjournment applications filed by the assessee.” 3. The Assessment Order has been passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee pleaded that no proper service of notice was effected before completion of the assessment. The assessee has also failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) which led to dismissal of the appeal summarily without going into the merits of the case. Taking into consideration the established jurisprudence, since, the merits ITA No. 1068/Del/2023 Krishan Kumar 3 have not been examined by the ld. CIT(A), we hereby remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits of the issue. The revenue would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as per the Act in case of non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/06/2023. Sd/- (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Accountant Member Dated: 20/06/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR