Rajan Ahuja, Delhi V. Income Tax Officer Ward 45(2), Delhi

ITA 2542/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9555 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2542/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rajan Ahuja, A-2/79, Ground Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027. PAN-BXXPA0933M vs ITO, Ward-45(2), Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 28.02.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- A. “BECAUSE the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. B. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 28.02.2023 without dealing with the submissions made by the Appellant. C. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 28.02.2023 without going through the merits of the case and the without going through the evidences placed forth by the Appellant during the course of the appellate proceedings. D. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) instead of dealing with the issues pertaining to assessment under section 144, reproduced the penalty order u/s 250 in case of penalty under section 272 and did not pass the Page | 2 appropriate order dealing with the issues put forth pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. E. BECAUSE in the case of the Appellant, there is no final order passed by the CIT(A) dealing with the grounds raised by the Appellant qua the appellate proceedings which sine qua non to the case of the Appellant rendering the case of the Appellant in a state of cessation. F. BECAUSE the additions made by the Ld. AO is erroneous, illegal and bad in law and is liable to be set aside. G. BECAUSE the Ld. AO passed the order dated 25.12.2019 without considering the submissions/reply filed by the Appellant. H. BECAUSE the Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that the cash deposited by the Appellant was duly accounted for and the same was explained by the Appellant in its reply dated 22.12.2019 which the Ld. AO failed to consider while passing the assessment order. I. BECAUSE the Ld.AO failed to appreciate the fact that the amount received by the Appellant apart from the cash deposit was received from the sale consideration from the sale of its property during the relevant Assessment Year.” 3. The present appeal is barred by 127 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. An affidavit dated 05.09.2023 by Shri Rajan Ahuja, has been filed, stating that due to non-receipt of notices, he could not file appeal in time. 4. Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed this submission of the assessee. 5. However, looking to the facts and evidences placed before me, I am of the considered view that there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 127 days is condoned and the appeal filed by the assessee is taken up for hearing. Page | 3 6. Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) imposed penalty of INR 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on account of failure of the assessee to respond to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice could not be responded as the assessee had shifted his residence to a new address and the notices were sent to the old address. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause of not responding to the notices issued by the Department to the assessee. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had shifted his residence to other address. Ld.CIT(A) did not accept the same on the basis that no supporting evidences was filed by the assessee. However, looking to the facts of the present case that the assessee had sold his property which is not disputed by the Revenue, I hereby direct the AO to delete the penalty of INR 10,000/- imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13 th December, 2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER Page | 4 * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI