Naveen Kumar Prop. M/s. K.S. Handloom Industries, Panipat V. ITO, Ward- 3 , Panipat

ITA 933/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Naveen Kumar, the proprietor of M/s K.S. Handloom Industries, against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Karnal, which confirmed the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3, Panipat. The reassessment order included an addition of Rs.84,98,849 to the assessee's income, attributed to unexplained deposits in his bank account. The primary legal contention raised by the assessee was the improper assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), leading to the remand of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131633 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 933/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Sh. Naveen Kumar, Prop. M/s K.S. Handloom Industries, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat, Haryana-132103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANZPK4718K Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kr. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 07.12.2018. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act. 1961. 1(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned reassessment order, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.2. ITA No. 933/Del/2019 Naveen Kumar 2 (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.84,98,849/- on account of deposits in bank account and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A0 in making addition of Rs.84,98,849/- on account of deposits in bank account, is bad in law and against the facts and Circumstances of the case and without providing the entire adverse material available on record. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned ex-parte order passed by ld. AO and that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice.” 3. In the instant case, the Assessment Order has been passed u/s 144 determining the total income at Rs.86,79,239/-. The additions have been made mainly on account of cash deposits and the savings bank account of the assessee maintaining with ICICI Bank. 4. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee did not appear before the AO in response to the notices issued by the AO in the remand proceedings. 5. Before us, it was pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR objected in principle. ITA No. 933/Del/2019 Naveen Kumar 3 6. We find no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity be given to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in case of non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30/06/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR