PROMILA,ROHTAK V. ITO, WARD - 3, ROHTAK

ITA 1964/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Promila, against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,87,500 to her income for the Assessment Year 2013-14, based on unaccounted cash deposits in her bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially made this addition under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, following non-compliance by the assessee to notices regarding unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance and lack of written submissions from the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the nature of the assessee as a housewife, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31732 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA; NITIKA GUPTA; PA SSING AN EXPARTE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1964/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Promila, W/o-Sh. Jai Pal Singh, H.No.1844, Sector-2-3 Part, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Vs ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 PAN-CDCPP2747N Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv & Ms. Nitika Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex- parte order dated 23.08.2023 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- I. That the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is against law and facts. II. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by passing an ex-parte order for non appearance, although no proper opportunity of hearing was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant. 2 ITA No.1964/Del/2024 III. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing in ex- parte order against the appellant, although Ld. CIT (A) has no power to pass an ex-parte order and is bound to decide the appeal on merits. IV. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,87,500/- made by the Ld. AO in the Assessment Order on account of cash deposits by the appellant in her bank account. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is an individual. The AO received AIR/CIB information from the office of JDIT(Investigation), Gurugram, dated 17.07.2015 that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.20,87,500/- in cash in her bank account maintained with Dena Bank during the year under consideration relevant to A.Y.2013-14 but the assessee had not filed her ITR. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a notice u/s148 of the Act on 28.03.2019 which was duly served on the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said notice u/s148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices which were also not responded to by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the AO issued a show cause notice proposing to pass an order u/s. 144/147 of the Act taxing the cash deposit of Rs.20,87,500/- in bank account maintained with the Dena Bank. There was again no compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the AO finalized the assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Act vide an order dated: 16.12.2019 for A.Y.2013-14 at the assessed income of Rs.20,87,500/-. 3 ITA No.1964/Del/2024 4. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed ex-parte despite opportunities given to the assessee to appear and or to file written submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not filed any written submission during the course of assessment or appellate proceedings. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) took note of the fact that in the statement of facts filed with the form No.35, the assessee stated that she was a housewife and the amount deposited was from the sale proceeds received from sale of land. However, he held that no proof of land holding by the assessee and the sale thereof has been filed by the assessee and therefore, the assessee did not controvert the findings of the AO and therefore in his considered view, the AO was justified in his findings and thus confirmed the addition of Rs.20,87,500/-. 5 Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and requested that the matter be set-aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and opposed the setting-aside of the appellate order as requested by the assessee. 4 ITA No.1964/Del/2024 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this case, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) or Assessing Officer despite opportunities given. However, the assessee is an individual being a house-wife and therefore in order to subserve the interests of justice and to provide an opportunity to the assessee to effectively represent her case, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.10.2024. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, "