RISHI PRAKASH ,DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 40(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 5676/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312241 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMER SINGH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: DISHANT SETHI
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5675 & 5676/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 With ITA Nos.5677 & 5678/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Rishi Prakash, 9, Yadav Nagar, Near Samaipur Badli, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(4), New Delhi PAN:AGVPP6251B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM The instant batch of four cases pertain to a single asseessee herein, Sh. Rishi Prakash. These assessee’s appeals ITA Nos. 5675 & 5676/Del/2018 (for AY: 2008-09) and ITA Nos.5677 & 5678/Del/2018 (for AY: 2009-10) are directed against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s as many orders dated 30.12.2011 and Assessee by Sh. Dishant Sethi, Adv. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Department by Sh. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.04.2025 ITA Nos.5675, 5676, 5677 & 5678/Del/2018 2 | P a g e 19.08.2013 passed in case nos. 205/10-11; 182/12-13; 180/12- 13 and 181/12-13 involving proceedings under sections 144 in first and third cases and under section 271(1)(c) in second and fourth cases of, respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s “lead” quantum appeal ITA No. 5675/Del/2018 in former assessment year 2008-09, it emerges at the outset that not only the assessment herein dated 15.12.2010 had been framed ex-parte, but also the learned CIT(A) has noted the appellant’s continuous non-appearance on many occasions to affirm the assessment findings making the corresponding disallowances/additions forming subject matter of challenge before us. 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel representing assessee seeks to explain his above alleged non-cooperation on account of various miscellaneous reasons and communication gaps because of circumstances beyond control. 5. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the assessee has been habitual in non-cooperating in both the lower proceedings. ITA Nos.5675, 5676, 5677 & 5678/Del/2018 3 | P a g e 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that possibility of some communication gaps in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. We thus deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant “lead” quantum appeal ITA No. 5675/Del/2018 for AY 2008-09 back to the learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts/explanation within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings, failing which, our instant remand order shall be deemed to have been vacated. Ordered accordingly. Same order to follow in assessee’s identical remaining three appeals ITA Nos. 5676, 5677 & 5678/Del/2018 7. These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.5675, 5676, 5677 & 5678/Del/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th April, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "