Jitender Singh Kataria, Gurgaon V. ITO Ward 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 1592/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Jitender Singh Kataria, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, which dismissed his appeal on procedural grounds without considering the merits. The primary contention in the original assessment was the addition of Rs. 68,40,000 as undisclosed income, which the assessee claimed was from the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer had rejected this explanation, leading to a substantial tax assessment. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation during the hearings but proceeded to address the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112762 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1592/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. _1592/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jitender Singh Kataria, H. No. 173A, Village- Bassi, Gurgaon-122001. PAN- ASJPK6005A Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Govind Singhal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.01.2023 Date of pronouncement 10.01.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 19.09.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law as well as fact of the case 2 ITA no. 1592/Del/2019 by dismissing the appeal. 2. That no notice was served at the residential address of the assessee where as the Authorised Representative of the assessee kept on misguiding the assessee that the case is being persued. 3. That the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 68,40,000/-as undisclosed Income is not tenable as the assessee had sold agricultural Land which was well explained to the AO. 4. That the Assessee reserves the right to add , amend or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,50,760/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment, sought explanation about the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. However, the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold agricultural land and a copy of sale-deed was also furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and computed the capital gain at Rs. 25,33,334/-. He further made addition of Rs. 60,80,000/-, the amount which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Hence the Assessing Officer assessed total taxable income at Rs. 71,30,760/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the ground of 3 ITA no. 1592/Del/2019 limitation without adverting to the merit of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. No one attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that various adjournments have been granted to the assessee, however, no one has attended the proceedings. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 4. Learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has recorded the fact that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposit as the sale consideration of the agricultural land, which he had sold. However, the contention was rejected on the ground that requisite information was not filed. Further, the Assessing Officer computed capital gain of Rs. 25,33,334/- and also made addition of the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 68,80,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not stated at what amount the entire income has been assessed. The learned CIT(Appeals) without adverting on merit rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have decided the issue on merit. We, therefore, considering the material available on record condone the delay and restore the 4 ITA no. 1592/Del/2019 grounds of appeal to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals), to be decided on merit. We, therefore, direct the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue on merit. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 10.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI