MOHD YAHYA,NUH V. ITO WARD 2(5), GURGAON

ITA 419/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd Yahya, the appellant, who appealed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward \\u2013 2(5), Gurgaon. The assessment for the year 2017-18 included additions on account of agriculture income and unexplained income, which the appellant contested. The primary contention in the appeal was the alleged violation of the principle of natural justice, as the appellant failed to comply with several notices during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, acknowledging the non-compliance and the absence of the appellant, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474627 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 419/Del/2024 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mohd Yahya House No.30, Ward No.07, Near Jagdamba Electric Mewat, Nuh, Haryana-122 107 PAN : ADYPY 6660 P Vs. ITO Ward – 2(5) Gurgaon – 122 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by -None- Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal filed by assessee is against the order dated 17.08.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(5), Gurgaon [hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO’] under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18. -2- ITA No.419/Del/2024 Mohd. Yahya vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/assessee electronically filed his return of income on 21.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.0/- and agriculture income of Rs.14,00,890/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with the reason “Large agriculture income shown in ITR and large cash deposits during demonetization period”. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.08.2018. Assessee submitted copy of bank statement only. Various notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 15.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 20.08.2019 & 12.09.2019 to the assessee. Assessee did not make any compliance. Final show-cause notice was issued on 18.10.2019, which remained non-complied. On completion of assessment proceedings, learned AO vide order dated 20.11.2019 made additions of Rs.14,00,890/- on account of agriculture income and Rs.11,40,000/- on account of unexplained income. 3. Against order dated 20.11.2019, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A) which was dismissed by order dated 17.08.2023. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant/assessee. -3- ITA No.419/Del/2024 Mohd. Yahya vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 6. Learned Departmental Representative for the Department of Revenue submitted that despite ample opportunities, assessee failed to appear before the Departmental Authorities. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that learned CIT(A) vide order dated 17.08.2023 upheld the order of learned AO dated 20.11.2019. It is a fact that appellant/assessee despite several notices had failed to appear before learned AO and CIT(A). In appeal, appellant/assessee has claimed that assessment order and appellate order were passed in violation of principle of natural justice. In view of the above material facts and well settled principle of law, in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to restore the matter to the file of learned AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day 12th February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12.02.2025 Pr i ti Y adav, S r. PS * -4- ITA No.419/Del/2024 Mohd. Yahya vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "