PARVEEN KUMAR,GHAZIABAD V. ITO,WARD-2(2)(1), GAHZIABAD

ITA 3459/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Parveen Kumar, an LPG gas distributor, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Department and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appellant's case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO made a significant addition to the appellant's income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) in an ex parte order. The appellant contested that he had not received proper notice for the hearings, leading to the appeal in the tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23641 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPELLANT ASSESSEE; HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: GOVIND AGARWAL
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3459/Del/2024 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Parveen Kumar Ch No.206-207, Ansal Satyam RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201 002 PAN : BLXPK 4685 A Vs. ITO Ward – 2(2)(1) Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Govind Agarwal, C.A. Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal filed by assessee is against the order dated 20.06.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 15.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Department, Ward – 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO’) under section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. -2- ITA No.3459/Del/2024 Parveen Kumar vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/assessee is a LPG gas distributor and makes sales to retail consumers mostly in cash. The assessee filed return of income on 13.09.2017 for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring net income of Rs.2,98,750/- which was processed. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with reasons “Large cash deposits during demonetization period”. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 27.09.2018 was issued. Another notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.12.2018 along with questionnaire was issued for compliance. The assessee did not furnish any reply. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.08.2019 and 07.09.2019 were issued. The assessee again failed to furnish reply. On completion of assessment proceedings, addition of Rs.2,12,79,810/- was made by learned AO vide order dated 15.12.2019. 3. Against order of learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A) which was dismissed vide ex parte order dated 20.06.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) without proper service of notices on assessee dismissed the appeal vide ex parte order. Learned CIT(A) failed to consider that neither any notice under section 143(2) of the Act nor any order were served on the assessee. So the matter may be restored to the file of learned AO. -3- ITA No.3459/Del/2024 Parveen Kumar vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 6. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that despite several notices appellant/assessee failed to appear before the learned AO and learned CIT(A). 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that learned CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 20.06.2024 upheld the ex parte order dated 15.12.2019 of learned AO. Appellant has contended that the appellant was not served with any notice under section 143(2) of the Act or any notice for hearing before the learned AO and learned CIT(A). 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 the 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 31st January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31.01.2025 Pr i ti Y adav, S r. PS * -4- ITA No.3459/Del/2024 Parveen Kumar 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 "