Rajendra Prasad, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle- 37(1), New Delhi

ITA 6974/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5046 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Tangible material; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 69; 144; 142(1); 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6974/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Shri Rajendra Prasad, vs. ACIT, Circle 37 (1), F-3-195, Sector 16, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AZUPP4896L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Smt. Radha K. Narang, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of Order : 07.04.2022 O R D E R The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-13, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for the initiation, continuation and conclusion of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w. 148 of the Act nevertheless, there being a fundamental & foundational defect in the service & communication of notice u/s 148 & 143(2), 142(1) of the Act. 2 ITA No.6974/Del./2019 2. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law in confirming the issue of notice u/s 148 at old address as valid service of notice. 3. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law since notice u/s 148 dt. 21.03.18 was issued at old address in Delhi which was left by assessee long back. 4. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law in passing the assessment order u/s 147/144 without obtaining valid approval as prescribed under the law, without recording valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and without complying with the mandatory requirement as prescribed u/s 147 to 153 with regard to the reopening of the case u/s 147 and framing of the assessment u/s 147 to 144 in consequence thereto.” 5. Because the action for initiation of re-assessment proceedings is unreasonable as without noticing the distinction of the words, reasons to suspect distinguishable from reasons to belief, pursuant to reasons recorded. Further there is non-application of mind much less independent application of mind by AO. Reasons recorded are vague, lacking tangible material/ reasonable cause and justification.” 6. Because action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs.10,00,000/- overlooking that the said amount deposited out of past savings and realisation of sale of stocks since assessee has closed down his business.” 3. At the outset, before me, the legal ground has not been pressed and the only grievance of the assessee is that the AO has erred on facts in passing ex-parte order as no notice was served upon the assessee due to change in address. 3 ITA No.6974/Del./2019 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had shifted to Varansi, therefore, not only the notice u/s 148 but also the other notices could not be served upon the assessee. The AO has added the cash deposited and other receipts in the bank amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- and since assessee could not get a chance to give his explanation, the AO has added the same u/s 69 of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) held that the AO later on issued one notice u/s 142(1) dated 16.11.2018 which was sent on Varansi address and, therefore, it cannot be said that notice was not sent on the changed address. Therefore, he confirmed the said addition. 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that once a notice has been served on the changed address and even the ld. CIT (A) has not accepted the explanation of the assessee, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is to be sustained. 6. After considering the relevant findings of impugned order as well as the submissions made by the ld. Counsel, I find that it is an undisputed fact that assessee had shifted his address to Varansi and, therefore, neither the notice u/s 148 nor other notices could be served upon the assessee. One notice dated 16.11.2018 has been issued by the AO u/s 142(1) at Varansi address which, according to the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has not denied receiving of this notice. Even if the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 16.11.2018, however it is not borne out from record whether notice was served and moreover the after such notice also, the order of assessment was passed on 07.12.2018. Under these circumstances and in the interest of 4 ITA No.6974/Del./2019 justice, this issue on merits is remanded back to the file of the AO to verify the contention of the assessee and assessee can give his explanation for the cash deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-, which has been stated to be from business of food grains carried out earlier and the amount was from past savings and realisation of sale of stocks. AO will give due and affective opportunity to the assessee and assessee should ensure that proper compliance is made to substantiate his case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced on 7 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.04.2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-13, New Delhi 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.