RAMAKANT PAREEK,DELHI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

ITA 1490/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ramakant Pareek, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, which had dismissed his earlier appeal against the assessment order made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The assessment was based on findings from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on the premises of Sanjay Jain & Mehta Group, where incriminating evidence was found. The appellant contested the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A), claiming it violated the principles of natural justice, as he had not been given adequate opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN GULATI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1490/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ramakant Pareek, G-84/3, Laxmi Park, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, West Delhi – 1100 87 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi PAN :AGKPP5724E (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of the assessee is against order dated 13.01.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi(hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 13.03.2023 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (hereinafter referred Appellant by Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR Date of hearing 19.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1490/Del./2025 as “the Ld. AO”) under Section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that original return was filed on 08.12.2021 declaring income of Rs.8,83,040/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 26.10.2020 in cases of Sanjay Jain & Mehta Group at various residential and business premises. During the course of search, two sets of books of tally were found (Annexure A-31). The set of tally data which contains the receipt and expenditure in cash. The case was centralized to Central Circle-30, New Delhi as per order under Section 127 of the Act by Ld. PCIT, Delhi-12 dated 13.12.2022. Notice under Section 153C of the Act dated 13.01.2023 was issued. The assessee filed his ITR on 24.01.2023. Notice under Section 143(2) dated 22.02.2023 was issued. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued on 14.12.2022 on 22.02.2023. Assessee filed replies to the notices on 25.02.2023 and 28.02.2023 without related documents. Another notice under Section 142(1) dated 22.02.2023 was issued. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made addition of Rs.5,49,787/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld.AO, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2025. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1490/Del./2025 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order in violation of principles of natural justice. The matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that appellant failed to comply with four notices for hearing. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices for hearing to the assessee. The Assessee failed to appear. Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 13.01.2025, dismissed the appeal. The Assessee has prayed restoration of matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). In view of above material facts, in the interest of justice, it is considered expedient to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to appellant/assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19TH August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20 August, 2025. Mohan Lal Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1490/Del./2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "