JYOTI NAGPAL,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 1228/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jyoti Nagpal against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed an exparte order by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 41,28,400, with an addition of Rs. 39,34,110 for the difference between cash deposits and withdrawals. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the merits of the case and remitted the matter back for fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31670 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 1228/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2009-10 JYOTI NAGPAL, B-182, 1ST FLOOR, DERAWAL NAGAR, DELHI – 9 (PAN: ADKPN3086C) VS. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 23.02.2024, relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following ground:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the exparte order of the AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case which AO could not examined because of absence of assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not independently examining the factual position and confirming the addition simply on the basis of exparte order of AO. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not evaluating the remand report and not incorporating the same in the body of appellate order and deciding the appellate proceeding without independently evaluating the remand report and facts of the case. 2 | P a g e 2. Brief facts of the case are that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act on 28.12.2011 by assessing the total income at Rs. 41,28,400/- and making the addition of Rs. 39,34,110/- towards difference of cash deposits and the cash withdrawals as the sources of investments was passed. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal filed belatedly, he proceeded to note that sufficient notices were sent to the assessee, but assessee has not responded, hence, he proceeded to confirm the order of the AO by dismissing the same on account of non-prosecution on the part of the assessee. 3. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing. Hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 5. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. I note that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, without properly considering the merits of the case. In view of above, and in the interest of justice, I deem it and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which the Ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10/03/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "