Bharat Lal Dgar, Faridabad V. PrCIT, Faridabad

ITA 1856/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2344 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAI AGGARWAL; WAY OF AN APPLICATION
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1856/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Bharat Lal Dgar House No.16328, Near Shiv Mandir, Ballabgarh Haryana-121 004 PAN: AOIPD 4827 N Vs. Pr CIT Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jai Aggarwal, C.A. Respondent by : Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY – JUDICIAL MEMBER : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Faridabad under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011- 12. ITA No.1856/Del/2022 Bharat Lal Dgar. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 - 2. The appeal preferred by assessee is barred by limitation. The order passed by the Learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act impugned before us dated 17.03.2021 came to the knowledge of the assessee only on 1 st July 2022 at the time of filing of return. In fact, he came to know about the demand raised and then searched on the “e-proceeding” and found the revisional order under Section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, relevant documents were received from the assessee, who admittedly a senior citizen, 75 years old and appeal could be filed before the |Registry on 18 th July 2022. Further that, the impugned order was passed on 17.03.2021 during the second wave of Corona pandemic. The above fact as has been narrated by the assessee by way of an application for condonation of delay seems to be genuine and thus the delay is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that, the initial assessment order was completed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act at the returned income of Rs.2,45,210/-. Subsequently, the Pr CIT, Faridabad observed that cash deposit of Rs.13,17,000/- made by the assessee in the Bank account remained unexplained in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. The said original order was, therefore, found to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. Though, the notice under Section 263 of the Act was served upon the assessee since, nothing was foregoing. The proceedings was finalized upon passing the order dated 17.03.2021 by the Pr CIT by setting aside ITA No.1856/Del/2022 Bharat Lal Dgar. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 - the issue to the file of the AO for fresh assessment upon verification of the cash deposit made by the assessee. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted the following explanation in regard to the cash receipt: i. that you had received advance of Rs.2,00,000/- from Shri Raman S/o Shri Amila, R/o Village Kithwadi Ramgarh, Palwal ii. That you had received Rs.2,00,000/- from Shri Dhiraj Dagar S/o Hukum Chand, R/o Gaunchi. iii. That you had received Rs.11,00,000/- from Shri Hamidulla Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rahim. 6. The amount was received as advance in respect of a sale of a property. 7. Even otherwise the assessee furnished affidavit affirmed by the said three persons during the course of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 8. On the other hand the Learned Pr CIT though considered the copies of the affidavit affirmed by these three persons but in the absence of the sale deed of the property/agreement for sale the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act was found to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 9. However, it appears from the record that the assessee apart from other details though submitted the affidavits affirmed by the persons from whom the advance amount was received, the contention whereof has not been examined by the Pr CIT neither the same has been rebutted. ITA No.1856/Del/2022 Bharat Lal Dgar. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 4 - Therefore, considering the entire aspect of the matter, we do not find any merit in the order by the Learned CIT(A) under Section 263 of the Act, which has been done in our considered opinion in a routine manner without having any basis and thus quashed. 10. In the result, appeal of assessee is, therefore, allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/05/2024 Sd/- Sd/- ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 15/05/2024 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI