RAM RATI,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 43(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3196/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Ram Rati, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was directed against the assessment order passed under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on unresponded notices and substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) had rejected additional evidences provided by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings due to the absence of a Rule 46A application. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A)'s hyper-technical approach and emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29188 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3196/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) ITA No.3196/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2011-12) Ram Rati, C/o. B.L Gupta And Co. 2E, Caxton Building, Jhandewalan Estate, New Delhi 110055 PAN: AJGPR-6619-F ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(1), R.No. 2609, 26th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 04.02.2025 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 30.05.2024, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. A perusal of assessment order reveals that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’) was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2018. The proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act were initiated on the basis of AIR information that during the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 there has been cash deposits aggregating to Rs.59,51,267/- in savings bank account of the assessee. There was no response from the assessee’s side to the notice issued u/s. 2 ITA No.3196/DEL/2024 (AY 2011-12) 148 of the Act. In the absence of any reply to the subsequent notices as well issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) was constrained to complete assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. Aggrieved, against the assessment order dated 04.12.2018 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidences. The CIT(A) rejected additional evidences filed by the assessee, solely, on the ground that no application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A was filed by the appellant. The CIT(A) providing further opportunity to the assessee, dismissed appeal of the assessee. 3. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the assessee is a senior citizen. The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was not received by the assessee as the assessee was allegedly not residing on the address on which notice was sent. Hence, the assessee could not participate in assessment proceedings. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant documents by way of additional evidences. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s additional evidences at the threshold merely for the reason that additional evidences were not accompanied by application under Rule 46A. It is a trait law that Rules of procedure are to sub serve the ends of justice and not to defeat valuable rights of parties to the lis. Procedural law is fundamentally designed to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it. It is characterized as a handmaid of justice, to serves, support and advance the cause of justice, rather than dominate or dictate the judicial process. The CIT(A) has taken hyper technical and pedantic approach in rejecting assessee’s additional evidences. 4. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits after affording 3 ITA No.3196/DEL/2024 (AY 2011-12) reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering additional evidences filed by the assessee, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee is directed to file appropriate application for admission of additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority. 6. The assesee shall respond to notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 04th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 04.02.2025 NV/- ᮧि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 "