RAJ RANI,GOHANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5, SONIPAT

ITA 2269/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Raj Rani, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 49,02,500 to the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash deposits in a bank account. The assessee contended that the notices from the Assessing Officer were never served, and thus, they could not participate in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper service of notices and an opportunity for the assessee to respond.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298871 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SAMYAK JAIN; SUBODH JAIN; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एसएमसी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2269/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) ITA No.2269/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) Raj Rani, Village Lath, Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana 131301 PAN: BDYPR-5657-Q ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (5), AAykar Bhawan, Minarva Complex, Atlas Road, Sonipat Haryana 131001 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Samyak Jain, & Subodh Jain, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar , Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 01/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 13.03.2024, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Shri Samyak Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2 ITA No. 2269/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) Act') was completed in an ex-parte proceedings. Alleged notices sent by the Assessing Officer (AO) were never served on the assessee. He furnished copy of the notices allegedly issued by the Assessing Officer. He pointed that a perusal of screen shot of the notices would show that email id of the assessee is not mentioned on the notice, on which the said notices were allegedly sent by the AO. He further stated that the CIT(A) has also decided appeal of the assessee ex- parte. Despite the fact the assessee has furnished complete reply on 13.03.2024 to the queries raised by the CIT(A) the said reply was not considered before passing the impugned order. The ld. Counsel submitted that AO had made addition of Rs. 49,02,500/- on account of cash deposits in saving bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. The CIT(A) has upheld the same. He further stated that the assessee can explain the source of cash deposits, if an opportunity is granted to the assessee. The ld. Counsel prayed for restoring appeal to the AO for fresh assessment. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order submits that the assessee has been non cooperative before the AO, as well as, the CIT(A). Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee did not comply with the notices. He pointed that the CIT(A) vide notice dated 23.02.2024 had given time to the assessee to furnish reply by 11.03.2024, whereas the reply was furnished by the assessee on 13.03.2024 i.e. after the due date. By that time, the CIT(A) had finalized the impugned order, hence, reply furnished by the assessee was not considered. 3 ITA No. 2269/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) 4. Both sides heard, order of the authorities below examined. The assessee is in appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee allegedly furnished reply to the notice issued by the CIT(A), however, the said reply was furnished beyond the date of compliance mentioned in the notice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed that the notices issued by the AO were never served on the assessee, hence, the assessee could not participate in assessment proceedings. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore appeal to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee is directed to provide current/functional email id to the AO for service of notice. The assessee on service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 01st day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 01/10/2024 NV/- 4 ITA No. 2269/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "