KAMAL CHARAN,DELHI, INDIA V. ITO WARD-43(6) DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3441/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kamal Charan, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment included an addition of Rs. 1,45,03,160 as unexplained money, attributed to cash deposits in a bank account of Royal Impex, which the appellant contested was not operated by him and was subject to a criminal investigation for fraud. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471553 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARATI SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3441/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 KAMAL CHARAN, 34, RAIL VIHAR, NEAR SARASWATI VIHAR PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 34 (PAN: ADYPC2281N) VS. ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Ms. Bharati Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 07.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 12.11.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.05.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- 1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.5.2024, dismissing the appeal of the assessee exparte and thereby upholding the assessment order passed under section 144 of the 2 | P a g e Act is erroneous, bad in law and on facts, and contrary to the principle of natural justice. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition made in the impugned assessment order of Rs. 1,45,03,160/- being cash deposited in the Axis Bank account of a firm named royal Impex, treating it as unexplained money of the appellant under section 69A of the Act. 2.1 That the AO and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged cash deposit of Rs. 1,45,03,160/- in the Axis Bank account of Royal Impex did not belong to the appellant as the said account was never operated by the appellant, nor the impugned transactions were carried out by him. 2.2 That the AO as well as the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the appellant was a victim of fraud committed by two individuals namely, Shri Mayank Jain and Shri Varun Anand, who misused the bank account of appellant and dispute is pending in cirminatl investigation. 2. In this case, AO passed an exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act. AO made addition on account cash deposited appearing in bank account amounting to Rs. 1,45,03,160/-. AO noted that several notices were sent to the assessee, but assesse did not respond. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition. He also noted that there was no response from the assessee. 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the notices did not reach to the assessee, hence, assessee could not respond to the notices. Hence, she prayed that assessee may be given an opportunity before the AO to properly canvass his case. Ld. DR did not object the aforesaid proposition. 3 | P a g e 5.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12/11/2024. Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "