NIRMALJIT SINGH KHATRA,CHANDIGARH V. ITO, WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 976/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The dispute centered on the assessment year 2016-17, where the ITO had made an addition of INR 17,55,338 under 'unexplained investments', which the appellant argued was a reinvestment of matured fixed deposits, not fresh unexplained income. The appellant, a senior citizen with health issues residing abroad, claimed that he was not given a fair hearing as required by the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses in the reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly the non-compliance with the procedure laid down under section 148A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785310 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL ARORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 976/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, 3010, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: ACEPK0729N अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Anil Arora, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual) सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without Printed from counselvise.com 976-Chd-2025 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, Chandigarh 2 appreciating the genuine circumstances and reasons for the non-compliance. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to provide a meaningful opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice, despite the appellant being a senior citizen (aged 75 years) suffering from health issues and staying abroad with family. 3. That the addition of 17,55,338/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head 'unexplained investments' is unjustified, as the said amount represents reinvestment of matured fixed deposits and not any fresh unexplained income. 4. That the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 were initiated without compliance with the procedure laid down under section 148A of the Act, making the assessment order void ab initio. 5. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer is based on incorrect interpretation of facts and absence of due verification. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the Assessing Officer has passed and order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Printed from counselvise.com 976-Chd-2025 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, Chandigarh 3 short 'the Act') and the Ld. CIT(A) has also adjudicated it ex-parte. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee did not get any opportunity to make submissions either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). He further requested the Bench to remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) in their respective ex- parte orders. We find that the Assessee could not file the relevant documents either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the fitness of things, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass an order de novo on the basis of material available on record and the submissions made by the Assessee. 6. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh on merit, by considering Printed from counselvise.com 976-Chd-2025 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, Chandigarh 4 the submissions, documentary evidence produced by the Assessee and the relevant material available on record. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer shall afford due, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes. Order pronounced on 27.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "