SACHIT SHARMA,PANIPAT V. ITO,WARD-1, PANIPAT

ITA 4192/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sachit Sharma, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed an addition of INR 8,25,08,871 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount was credited to the appellant's bank account and was part of export transactions previously assessed. The appellant argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was cryptic and non-speaking. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that both the AO and the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the appellant, which were not fully utilized, leading to ex-parte orders. The ITAT decided to set aside the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural norms.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34226 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: EKTA KUMARI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

"ITA No.4192/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4192/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sachit Sharma, House No.-8, Virat Nagar, Panipat, Haryana-132103. PAN-FJFPS7189D vs ITO, Ward-1, Panipat. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Ekta Kumari, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.02.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.07.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066689654(1) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has challenged the order on the following grounds:- 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disposing the appeal against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by passing a non-speaking cryptic order against the principles of natural justice. ITA No.4192/Del/2024 Page | 2 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not considering the submission of that the impugned amounts to the tune of Rs. 8,25,08,871/- credited in the Bank Account were part of exports transactions already assessed vide Order dated 21.04.2021 u/S 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 8,25,08,871/- by treating the Cash Deposited during Financial year 2017-2018 in the Bank account as Unexplained Money u/s 69A. The Addition confirmed by the leamed CIT(A) ex parte deserves to be deleted. 5. That no enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Assessing Officer while coming to the adverse conclusion against the Appellant.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that from the perusal of the assessment order as well the appellate order, it is seen that the AO has allowed as many as seven opportunities. However, the assessee has made part compliances on two occasions and on remaining five occasions, they were remained unattended. Therefore, the AO passed the order ex-parte u/s 147/144 of the Act wherein additions of INR 8,25,08,871/- were made towards credits in the bank accounts of the assessee. In first appellate stage, eight opportunities were provided by Ld.CIT(A) however, except seeking adjournment on two occasions, no replies were filed before the Ld.CIT(A). For non-prosecution before the lower authorities, it was submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter, the case was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act, for verification of the credits in the bank accounts. Since the assessee has filed part replies and no proper submissions was made, therefore, the lower authorities has passed the order ex-parte. ITA No.4192/Del/2024 Page | 3 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Before us, Ld.AR prayed that the matter may be sent to AO. In the interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of AO to make assessment denovo afresh after allowing proper opportunity of being heard. Needless to say that the assessee be provided an opportunity before concluding the issue and the assessee is also directed to make necessary compliance on the notices issued by AO. However, looking to the facts, multiple opportunities were granted to the assessee by both the AO and the CIT(A) which were remained uncomplied. Hence, this is a fit case for levy of cost for defying statutory notices. The assessee is directed to pay cost IINR 10,000/-. The cost shall be paid in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The assessee is directed that the challan of INR 10,000/- be produced before the AO within the period of two months from the receipts of this order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "