KULDEEP KUMAR,HISAR, HARYANA V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 4172/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716776 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 143(3); 271(1)(c); 68; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4172/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kuldeep Kumar Dhani Near Lakhpal Village Adampur Tehsil Mandi Distt Hisar 125052 Pan NO. ASOPK2776R Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre , Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Shubham Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Shri Om Parkash Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 27-09-2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and arises out of the assessment order dated 26-03-2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal : Printed from counselvise.com 2 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act are devoid of merits and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition under section 68 of the Act amounting to INR 65,65,434/- on account of cash deposited in savings bank account of the appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition made by Ld. AO under section 68 of the Act amounting to INR 65,65,434 on account of cash deposited in savings bank account of the Appellant. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred In making addition under section 68 of the Act without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition under section 68 of the Act ignoring the detailed submissions made by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition under section 68 of the Act without following the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to INR 63,26,749. Printed from counselvise.com 3 Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before, or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. This appeal is filed beyond the time limit. In the condonation application the assessee has stated that he has parents and grand- parents are in home and due to illness, he could not file the appeal in stipulated time. There is a delay of 289 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the basis of information that cash of Rs. 67,62,500/- been deposited in the saving bank account. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was sent on e-mail ID of [e-mail], which was return back with remark that this not relates to me and notice was not served. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs 65,62,500/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 26-03-2022 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 5. ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that no notice received to the assessee and both the lower authorities passed the exparte order. 6. Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is a non -cooperative, he did not participate in the proceedings before the authorities. Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has dismissed the appeal exparte because the assessee was not present before the Ld. NFAC. The assessee was also not present before the Assessing officer. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem fit proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to grant one opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his case. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19 .08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- 21.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "