JAGBIR SAROHA,SONIPAT V. ITO, SONIPAT

ITA 4759/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jagbir Saroha, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had information about substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank account, totaling INR 1,53,98,000, which remained unverified due to the absence of a filed return. Consequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of these deposits during the reassessment proceedings, leading to an assessment order that included the entire amount as income. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a procedural delay in filing the appeal, which the Tribunal later condoned, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a substantive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824674 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAT SHARMA; THROUGH VC
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.4759/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4759/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jagbir Saroha, VPO-Rathdhana, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. PAN-BWWPS4646F vs ITO Sonipat, Haryana APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Akshat Sharma, Adv. (through VC) Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.09.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10196122 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2014-15. The AO has information in his possession that assessee had deposited cash in his saving bank account, totaling to INR 1,53,98,000/- and since no return of income was filed, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4759/Del/2024 Page | 2 source of cash deposits of INR 1,53,98,000/- remained unverified. Therefore, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated after recording satisfaction and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. In response, assessee failed to file ITR. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued from time to time seeking clarification from assessee about the source of deposits. The assessee at fag end of the proceedings, filed a reply wherein some details/documents were provided however, no explanation with regard to the source of cash deposits was given. The AO then concluded the proceedings and assessed the income of the assessee at INR 1,53,98,000/- vide assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 13.09.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following ground of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without providing opportunity to the appellant regarding delay in filling (of 125 days) the appeal, in filling the appeal. It is prayed before your honour the delay in filling the appeal may kindly be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts without considering the reply of the assessee that ITR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4759/Del/2024 Page | 3 submitted in response to notice under section 148 and assessment was made by the AO without issuing of notice under section 143(2), a mandatory requirement before passing the assessment order. It is prayed before your honour the assessment order may kindly be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant against the addition of Rs.15398000 made by the AO without considering the reply of the assessee and without affording proper opportunity, whereas the assessee explained the sources of cash deposit in the bank account before the AO and Ld. CIT (A). It is prayed before your honour that the addition of Rs.15398000 may kindly be deleted.” 5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was filed delayed by 129 days and no application for condonation of delay was filed. Ld. AR submits that Form No.35 was filed within the prescribed time however, it was not verified within the prescribed time limit and was ultimately verified on 02.09.2022 therefore, the delay was occurred. 6. After considering all the facts, in our considered opinion the assessee has reasonable and sufficient cause in filling the appeal delayed by 129 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ground of appeals raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4759/Del/2024 Page | 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date- 30.12.2025 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "