MANIDEEP MAGO ,NEW DELHI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 , NEW DELHI

ITA 1419/DEL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mandeep Mago against the orders of the CIT(A) -29, New Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention of the assessee was the illegal addition of Rs 94,71,91,200 to his income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that this addition constituted double taxation of the same credits and was made without proper jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Departmental Representative supported the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions and had not provided a fair hearing, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792424 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S. GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHIRUSTAGI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19] Manideep Mago Vs. The A.C.I.T. C1/107, Janakpuri Central Circle – 27 New Delhi New Delhi PAN – ANDPM 4133 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv Department By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) -29, New Delhi dated 30.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19] Mandeep Mago Vs. ACIT Page 2 of 5 “1. That the impugned assessment order and impugned CIT(A) order are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and hence the orders are liable to be quashed. 2. That the addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. That Sec 68 has been wrongly and illegally invoked against the appellant assessee while making addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/-. The addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/- is illegal and should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a clear case of double addition and double taxation of the same credits twice and the same is illegal and not permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the additions of both Rs 55,01,85,600/- and Rs 39,70,05,600/- (both part of Rs 94,71,91,200/-) is illegal, bad in law and are liable to be deleted. 6. That the various observations made in the assessment order and CIT(A) order are illegal, bad in law and against the facts on record and hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 7. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the business model of the appellant and hence the additions that are made are illegal and liable to be deleted. 8. That the orders passed by the lower authorities are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19] Mandeep Mago Vs. ACIT Page 3 of 5 9. That the assessee was also prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not representing the matter before the CIT(A). 10. That the lower authorities have failed to examine the surrounding facts and circumstances and the orders passed by the lower authorities are illegal, bad in law and unjust. 11. That the explanations, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee before the lower authorities have not been considered judiciously and hence the orders of lower authorities are liable to be set aside. 12. That the appellant prays to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the principles of natural justice were violated by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). We Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19] Mandeep Mago Vs. ACIT Page 4 of 5 are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6). Further, we find that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, directed to adjudicate the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents/evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05th December, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1419/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2018-19] Mandeep Mago Vs. ACIT Page 5 of 5 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "