JKB EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1817/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves JKB Exim Private Limited, the Appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC which pertained to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from an addition of Rs. 2,02,50,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessee argued that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a video conferencing option for the hearing and by issuing a final notice only five days before the hearing date. The Departmental Representative contended that sufficient opportunities were provided and the written submissions were considered. The Tribunal, referencing a Mumbai High Court decision, found merit in the Assessee's grievances regarding the hearing process and thus restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653092 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vimal Trading Vs. National Faceless Assessment in Writ Petition No. 12317/2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI; RAVINDER
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1817/Del/2024 JKB Exim Private Limited Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1817/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) JKB Exim Private Limited 5955/3, Hardhian Singh road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AACCJ2220J Vs. DCIT Circle 13(2) C. R. Building, ITO, IP Estate, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CA & Sh. Ravinder Mahajan, C.A Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ for short] dated 20/02/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 96,03,350/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was issued by the A.O. and in response, the Assessee furnished details before the A.O. Thereafter assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/12/2019 by making addition of Rs. 2,02,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of 2 ITA No. 1817/Del/2024 JKB Exim Private Limited Vs. DCIT cash deposited during the demonization period as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 12/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/02/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/02/2024, the Assessee has preferred the present Appeal. 3. The main grievance of the Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principals of natural justice in passing the order impugned. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal, has not provided video conferencing which was duly asked through written submissions by the Assessee. Further pointed out that, after filing the Appeal, the Assessee has duly complied with all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), written submissions and paper book were duly filed time to time however, the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, wherein the final notice has been servedjust five days before passing the order impugned, therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Assessee and the written 3 ITA No. 1817/Del/2024 JKB Exim Private Limited Vs. DCIT submissions have been considered while deciding the appeal, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the matter of fact that the Assessee has sought for virtual hearing through video conference in order to explain the facts and position of the case to the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) neither rejected the said request not allowed for video conference. Apart from the same, the last notice has been claimed to have been received by the Assessee on 15/02/2024, wherein the date of hearing was mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) as 19/02/2024. The Assessee filed an application for adjourning the matter due to paucity of time, howeverthe order impugned came to be passed on 20/02/2024. Considering the above facts and circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, we deem it fit to restore the Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow the request of the Assessee for virtual hearing in view of the ratio laid down by the Mumbai high Court in the case of Vimal Trading Vs. National Faceless Assessment in Writ Petition No. 12317/2022 dated 27/02/2025. Further direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4 ITA No. 1817/Del/2024 JKB Exim Private Limited Vs. DCIT 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 18 .06.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "