RAHUL JAIN,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 59(8), NEW DELHI

ITA 1235/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rahul Jain, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which upheld the addition of Rs. 26,47,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, due to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and the decision was made without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471525 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARUL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 1235/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2017-18 RAHUL JAIN, 1/6350, STREET NO. 5, EAST ROHTASH NAGAR, SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI (PAN: AEDPJ7952D) VS. ITO, WARD 59(8), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Ms. Parul Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 11.03.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi dated 06.03.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority u/s. 250 of the Act is arbitrary, injudicious and bad at law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad at law and against the natural justice as the said order has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 26,47,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act made by the AO on the account of cash deposits 2 | P a g e made in bank accounts which is grossly injudicious, unwarranted and bad at law. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the orders of the AO without understanding that all the relevant documents were provided to AO during the assessment proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 31.7.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,970/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the demonetization period, the assesse had deposited cash of Rs. 26,47,000/-. The AO passed the assessment order on 21,12,2019 making addition of Rs. 26,47,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of plausible explanation and supporting documentary evidence to justify the source of cash deposits, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the aforesaid action of the ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. She further submitted that non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A) was occurred due to change of counsel. She also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO without deciding the same on merits. Hence, she prayed to remand back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Ld. DR has no objection to this proposition. Upon careful consideration, I find that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of plausible explanation and supporting documentary evidence to justify the source of cash deposits and even did not decide the issues in dispute on the merits of the case. Therefore, in my considered view and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and consider the 3 | P a g e documentary evidences provided by the assessee and passed a speaking order on the merits of the case. I hold and direct accordingly. Also assessee through his Ld. AR is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and provide the necessary documents / evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to enable him to complete the proceedings, in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11/03/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "