MANISH MITTAL,DELHI V. ACIT,CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2920/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Manish Mittal, a trader of readymade garments, who appealed against the orders confirming an addition of Rs. 1,50,00,168 as unexplained income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was initially made by the AO based on documents seized from another party, without direct evidence linking Mittal to the income. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) partially relieved the assessee but upheld the majority of the addition. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the FAA's handling of new evidence and the assessee's justified non-compliance due to communication issues with his former consultant. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case fully before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312931 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Documents seized
• Section: 144; 132

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-2920/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) Manish Mittal 612, Gandhi Cloth Market, ChandniChowk, Central Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle – 46 (1) New Delhi PAN No:AAMPM9125G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by:Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement :.04.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order u/s 250 dated 12.04.2024 of NFAC, Delhi passed by Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064052524(1) for the assessment year 2012-13. Through the aforesaid order, NFAC has confirmed order u/s 144 dated 22.12.2019 passed by the Ld.AO. Page 2 of 7 2.0 At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case the Ld.AO has passed an ex- parte order making addition of Rs.1,50,00,168/- as unexplained income by relying upon documents seized u/s 132 from possession of some other party. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of readymade garments in the name and style of Manviimpex. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had justified grounds for not complying with the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. It was submitted that the notices were issued to the email address of previous consultant being [e-mail]. It was pleaded that the said consultant did not inform the assesse of the impugned statutory notices and that therefore non-compliance was neither wanton nor intentional. The Ld. First Appellate Authority rejected the defence of the assessee qua justification for non-compliance to the Ld.AO’s notices and proceeded to confirm the addition made by the Ld.AO save Page 3 of 7 a part relief of Rs. 168/- . The Ld. Counsel accordingly urged that the non-compliance was made without any mens rea and was totally unintentional. It was urged that a last opportunity may be given to present its case before the Ld. AO. The Ld. Counsel personally assured that full compliance would be made to the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. 3.0 The Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the assessee has emphatically submitted that the emails were issued by the Ld. AO on the email id of earlier consultant. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. Though, we also noted that the assessment order indicates some notice, apparently also were hand delivered. The order of Ld. First Appellate Authority at para 3 shows that assessee was requested to file submissions along with evidences of Page 4 of 7 the documents and which were filed. The relief has been accorded by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in consideration of such submissions filed by the assessee on 14.02.2024 as evident from para 3 of the appellate order. It is an undisputed fact of the case that the assessing officer has made the impugned addition without any material before him. It is also evidently clear that the relief has been accorded by the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of evidences produced before him during appellate proceedings. Rule 46A mandates that a CIT(A) before considering any material exclusively filed during appellate proceedings is required to confront the same to the Ld.AO for his comments. This critical requirement of law has not been fulfilled by the Ld.CIT(A). The fact of assessee originally using its earlier consultant’s email id being [e-mail] is evident from that fact that the assessee now using the email id viz [e-mail] . Be that as it may be we are of the view that assessee had adequate justification for Page 5 of 7 non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO and deserves one last opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the order of lower authorities is set aside. The correct estimation of assessee’s taxable income can only be done by the AO once the assesse complies fully and correctly with its notices. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case before the AO. Consequently, ,placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment de novo. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the statutory notices issued by the AO. Any non- compliance on the part of the assessee shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Page 6 of 7 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (AMITABH SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Neha, Sr. PS* Dated: 30/04/2025. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "