MOHD IKRAM,HAPUR V. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

ITA 1217/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd. Ikram, a small-time meat vendor from Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and the subsequent re-assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The AO had added Rs. 2,141,800 to the assessee's income, treating it as unexplained investment income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the AO had previously dropped the proceedings, acknowledging the assessee's return of income which included the receipts from his meat business. The Tribunal also considered the procedural fairness in the assessee's appeal process, noting that the appeal was filed within the permissible time after the assessee received the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471944 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JASKARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Unexplained investment; Recovery proceedings
• Section: 147; 44AD

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1217/D/2024 (Assessment Years: 2012-13) Mohd. Ikram Sikander Gate, Pani Ki Tanki, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh 245101 Vs. ITO Ward- 2 (3) (4) Hapur ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं/PAN/GIR No: PAN No.ABBPI5927N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Jaskaran Singh, CA Sh. Munendra Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 ORDER The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as “NFAC”) arising out of the order dated 03.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as “AO”) for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted a reply dated 25.04.2018 with Ld. Income Tax Officer, who already dropped the proceedings on the premises that the assessee filed its return of 2 income and, therefore, deposits appears to be business receipts. In fact, the incumbent in the office of the Ld. AO, without considering the fact that his predecessor had already dropped the proceedings, again initiated the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act which was culminated in the final order dated 03.12.2019 upon making addition of Rs.2141800/- being deposit made by the assessee in his savings bank account treating the same as unexplained investment income u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee only got to know about such re-assessment order when the recovery proceedings were initiated. It is the case of the assessee that the assessment order dated 03.12.2019 was never served upon the assessee and the appeal preferred by the same stood dismissed being barred by limitation. 3. The appellant is a small-time meat vendor and an individual resident of Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant filed its return of income wherein the receipts from the sale of raw meat amounting to Rs.22,25,000/- were offered to tax under presumptive scheme of taxation as per Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly 8% of the total receipt being Rs.1,78,200/- was offered to tax. It is relevant to mention that before the Ld. AO, the assessee duly filed the bank statement and return of income alongwith computation on 25.04.2018. 4. On the other hand when the assessee got to know about the assessment order on 03.12.2019 the assessee filed an application for obtaining the copy of the said assessment order which was received by the appellant on 27.04.2021 and thereafter appeal 3 was filed on 22.05.2021 (i.e. within 30 days from the date of service of the order). 5. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, it is the case of the assessee that there was actually no delay. Such plea taken by the assessee was also not objected by the Ld. DR with all his fairness. Hence, we do not find any reason in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority. 6. On the other hand, he made the addition being @ 8% on the total receipt of Rs.22,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee having regard to his business of the meat shop, fact of which has not been doubted by the authorities below, the addition is found not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the same is quashed. 7. In the, the result of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2025. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-12.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "