MEENU RANI,SAHARANPUR V. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), SAHARANPUR

ITA 3878/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Meenu Rani, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 1,850,023 to her income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was based on alleged undisclosed transactions in securities of various companies, which were part of a syndicate involved in bogus claims of long-term capital gains. The AO had issued notices under sections 147/148 and 142(1), which the assessee did not comply with, leading to a best judgment assessment under section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31680 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUSHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 131

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 3878/Del/2023 A.YR. : 2012-13 MEENU RANI, H.NO. 5/267, MOHALLA MISHRAN, KHALAPAR, SAHARANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-237001 (PAN: ALXPR8758A) VS. ITO, WARD 3(3)(2), INCOME TAX OFFICE COURT ROAD, SAHARANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-247001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Bhushan Sharma, AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.02.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 14.12.2024, relating to assessment year 2012- 13 on the following ground:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has made the assessment order without making proper inquiry or without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1850023/- to the income of the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, facts are that the case of the assessee was selected u/s 2 | P a g e 147/148 for A.Y. 2012-13 on the basis of input that the assesses has been one of the beneficiaries of bogus LTCG/ STCL entries in F.Y. 2011-12, involving ploy by a syndicate which sought to lend credence to utterly bogus claims of the assessee /individual by executing trades on exchange and by colouring a pre-arranged transaction as a random market transaction having the veneer of genuineness. The bogus shell companies are M/s NYASA Corporation Ltd M/s Monotype India Ltd / M/s Diamont Infrastructure Ltd / M/s Scan Steels Ltd / M/s Divine Multimedia (India) Ltd I M/s Angam Capital Ltd / M/s VMS Industries Ltd. As per ITS details, total transaction made by the assessee in securities of M/s VMS Industries Ltd is pegged at Rs. 18,50,023/-, which has not been disclosed by her in ITR filed for A.Y. 2012-13. After recording the reasons and taking necessary approval of the PCIT, MZR, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 30/03/2019 but the assessee did not comply with the same and accordingly notices u/s 142(1) were served upon her from time to time as per record. A reply was received from the assessee against notice u/s 142 (1) in which she denied having any taxable income during the year. Accordingly, summons u/s 131 (1) (b) was served upon her on 15/12/2019 with a view to confronting her with the evidence placed on record but she eschewed compliance therewith. The assessee filed her ITR declaring total income at Rs.1,20,910/- from business and notice u/s 143 (2) was issued to her but she has not complied with the same. The assessee was then issued with a very specific notice u/s 144 on 23/12/2019 proposing therein u/s 144 to treat the said amount of Rs.18,50,023/- as her income for the A.Y. 2012-13 as per my best judgment assessment. The addition was proposed accordingly and the assessee was requested to furnish any reply upto 26/12/2019 on the strength of documentary evidence as to why the proposed addition should not be made as per my best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the said Act. AO noted that nothing has been heard from the assessee, hence, he completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by adding the addition of Rs. 18,50,023/- and 3 | P a g e assessed the total income at Rs. 19,70,933/-. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of non-prosecution and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO has not provided proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act. Hence, he requested an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to canvass her case before the AO. Ld. DR has not controverted the aforesaid proposition. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21/02/2025. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "