Rajesh Kumar, Bahadurgarh V. ITO,Ward-4, Rohtak

ITA 1488/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Kumar, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the year 2012-13, which treated a cash deposit of INR 30,80,000 in his bank account as income. The assessment was initially made without any representation from the assessee, leading to an ex-parte decision. The assessee argued that he was not informed about the proceedings and was illiterate, thus unable to understand the implications of the non-representation. The Tribunal acknowledged these circumstances and decided to set aside the original assessment, directing a fresh assessment with proper notice and opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122242 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1488/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Rajesh Kumar, S/o-Sh Bhim Singh, 143, VPO Kassar, Bahadurgarh, Distt.-Jhajjar, Haryana-124508. PAN-BVXPK1665G vs ITO, Ward-4, Rohtak. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Assessee in person Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012- 13 is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.04.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the basis of notice u/s 148, basis of proceedings u/s 147, basis of presumption u/s 69/69A, basis of presumption that cash deposit in bank account out of earlier withdrawals or subsequently withdrawn constitutes taxable income of the assessee within the four corners of the Act for the relevant assessment year, are without jurisdiction and stand rebutted, therefore whole proceedings stand vitiated. 2. That the only conclusion for taxable escaped income of Rs. 3080000 for the relevant assessment year is based on non-jurisdictional verification letter for which the assessee was under no obligation to respond and therefore, whole proceedings stand vitiated. Page | 2 3. That on the merits of the case, the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the Cash Flow Statement fully explaining the source of cash deposits. 4. That the approval u/s 151(1) is mechanical and without due application of mind which confers no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 and therefore whole proceedings stand vitiated. 5. That the assessee craves leave to amend, add, delete any ground of appeal with the permission of chair.” 2. The appeal is barred by 17 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. The assessee appeared in person and submitted that he is an illiterate person and is not aware of the Income Tax provisions. He contended that before the lower authorities, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The assessee had requested Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate for filing the appeal and attending the appellate proceedings but he was neither attended the proceedings nor informed about the appellate order. Therefore, the impugned order came to be passed ex-parte to the assessee and the impugned addition was sustained. 3. Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded the fact that both the authorities below have passed order ex-parte to the assessee. However, he contended that the assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own negligence. The assessee should have been vigilant for his case. 4. Having considered the submissions of the assessee and material available on records. The delay of 17 days in filing of appeal is hereby, condoned and appeal is admitted for disposal on merit. Page | 3 5. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was re-opened for assessment on account of cash deposited of INR 30,80,000/- into the bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. Since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the AO, the entire cash deposited was treated as income of the assessee and hence, the income of the assessee was assessed at INR 30,80,000/-. 6. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before Ld.CIT(A) also, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The assessee appeared in person and stated that lower authorities have passed impugned order ex-parte to him. He contended that he was not informed about the proceedings by his Ld.AR. He contended that lenient view may be taken and matter may be restored to the AO. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Looking to the facts available on record and the submissions of the assessee who appeared in person, I am of the considered view that the assessee being an illiterate person, could not understand the consequence of non- representation before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of Page | 4 principle of natural justice, an opportunity is given to the assessee to represent his case before the AO. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is hereby, set aside and the assessment is hereby, restored to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee undertakes to collect this order from Registry and approach the assessing authority. The assessee is further directed not to seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 th July, 2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI