MUKESH ,SONIPAT V. ITO, SONIPAT

ITA 4143/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by Mukesh Kumar against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The primary contention in these appeals was the dismissal of the assessee's appeals by the CIT(A) without adequately considering the grounds related to the non-service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the erroneous assumption that cash deposits in bank accounts constituted undisclosed income. The AO had reopened the case based on substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, which were considered undisclosed income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the current appeals. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of the assessee's submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38172 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHIT SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 142(1); 69A

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 NOS. 4142, 4143 & 4144/Del/2024 A.YRS. : 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2013-14 Mukesh Kumar Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (PAN: AWAOJ0415B) VS. ITO, SONIPAT, HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Akshit Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH : These 03 appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, dated 15.07.2024, 7.8.2024 and 15.7.2024 pertaining to assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2013-14 respectively. Since common grounds have been raised in all these 03 appeals, hence, we are dealing only with the facts of ITA No. 4142/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) as a lead case, wherein the following grounds have been raised:- 2 | P a g e 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ered in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the ground of appeal of the assessee that assessment order passed without service of notice u/s. 148 of the act. It is prayed that before your honour the legal ground of appeal may kindly be considered and assessment proceedings may kindly be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the ground of appeal of the assessee that the AO had reopened the case of the assessee on the fallacious assumption that bank deposits in cash constituted undisclosed income and overlooked the facts that the cash deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. It is prayed before your honour that the assessment order may kindly be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the sufficient cause for not filing the reply. This ground of appeal may kindly be considered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and the return of income for the AY 2012-13 was filed on 21.02.2014 by admitting a total income of Rs. 2,88,220/-. The AO received information that a sum of Rs. 1,26,65,000/- was deposited in the form of cash into Bank of India and this bank account also contains other credit entries for a sum of Rs. 45,55,494/-. Accordingly, the total credit into the bank account of Bank of India, Sonipat and Sirsa Branch was Rs. 1,72,20,294/-. The AO recorded the reasons and taken approval from the PCIT, Gurgaon and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.3.2019. AO noted that as there was no response, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued on several occasions. However, there was no response by the assesse to all the notices issued by the AO. The AO completed the assessment 3 | P a g e u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.11.2019 by the assessing the total income at Rs. 1,72,20,484/-. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that since no response was made by the assessee in respect of assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14, he confirmed the action of the AO and for the assessment year 2014-15 on the basis of the Remand Report from the AO, he granted the relief of Rs. 1,07,50,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 1,32,05,000/- made by the AO and confirmed a sum of Rs. 24,55,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Against the above directions of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that assessee is a small agriculturists and had bank accounts in different cities and money is deposited there out of agriculture income, withdrawal from bank accounts and other sources. He further submitted that since the assessee was not aware about the proceedings, as notices were not received, thus he could not provide the necessary details. For AY 2014-15, he submitted that the details provided, were not appreciated, hence, he prayed that the issues in dispute in all these years may be sent back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also considered the asessee’s responses and replies, if any, in this regard. Ld. DR did not have any objection to this proposition. In view of the this matter, in the interest of justice, 4 | P a g e we remit back the issues to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and also consider the assessee’s responses, replies etc., if any, in this regard. . In the result, the ITA No. 4142/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. 6. As regards assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14 are concerned, since the facts of these assessment years are similar and identical to assessment year 2012-13 as aforesaid, hence, our aforesaid decision given for the assessment year 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the assessment years 2014-15 & 2013-14 as well. We hold and direct accordingly. As a result, both the assessee’s appeals for AYs 2014-15 & 2013-14 also stand allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid same directions. 7. In the result, all the 03 appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 13/02/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "