SANJAY SODHI,ROHTAK V. ITO,WARD-2, ROHTAK

ITA 4079/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Sodhi, the appellant, who is engaged in the textile business and did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, which was responded to by filing a return that was treated as non-est. The ITO noted a substantial cash deposit of Rs. 4,06,50,589, which was not reported for taxation. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's assessment after the assessee's appeal, noting that the assessee had requested adjournments and submitted a reply on one occasion. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the adjournment request properly and that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471802 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4079/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2017-18 SANJAY SODHI, VS. ITO, WARD-2, 1811/3, GADI MOHALLA, ROHATAK ROHTAK, HARYANA-124001 (PAN: ANGPS57284M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 27.6.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal by rejecting original grounds of appeal as well as the additional grounds of appeal. 2 | P a g e ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal by not considering and discussing in the appellate order passed u/s. 250 dated 27.6.2024 the specific request made for adjournment u/s. 250(3) of the Act vide Para No. 40 and 41 of the partial submissions dated 17.6.2024. iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal by not allowing the specific request made for adjournment u/s. 250(3) of the Act vide para no. 40 and 41 of the partial submissions dated 17.6.2024, thus depriving the appellant proper opportunity of being heard, which is against the principle of natural justice. The impugned appellate order deserves to be set aside back to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication. iv) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the original grounds of appeal and confirming addition of Rs. 4,06,50,589/- without allowing proper opportunity of being heard. The addition deserves to be deleted. v) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the additional grounds of appeal pertaining to charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in textile business of cloths under the proprietorship firm M/s K.G. Enterprises and M/s S.S. Enterprises and not filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18. Notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued and duly served. In response to the same, 3 | P a g e the assessee had filed return of income and the same was treated as non-eset. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO was issued notice u/s. 142(1). In response to the same, the assessee has stated that due to technical glitch, he is unable to file the return of income. In response the assessee has not filed proper details. On perusal of the documents furnished the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 4,06,50,589/- for the said year and not offered any taxation for the said transactions. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B by assessing the total income Rs. 4,06,50,589/- thereby raising the tax demand of Rs. 6,78,29,479/-. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee had requested for adjournments and on one occasion reply was filed. He upheld the order of the AO. 3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that assessee’s adjournment request was not considered. For this, he referred the Paper Book Page no. 9 wherein, request for adjournment was made to adjourn the case to the Month of July, 2024 but the same was not considered by the CIT(A). Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that another notice was sent at wrong email address. In view of the matter, he submitted that proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A) has not been done. He prayed that an opportunity may be given before the Ld. CIT(A) to properly present the case. Ld. DR did not have any objection to the proposition made by the Ld. AR. 4.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 4 | P a g e 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.02.2025. SD/- SD/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "