SH. PRADEEP GOEL,DELHI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 1316/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Pradeep Goel against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld various additions to his income for the assessment year 2014-15, based on incriminating material found during a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention of the appellant was the procedural impropriety and the substantive errors in the additions made, which included unexplained cash, rental receipts, and expenditures. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without the presence or submissions of the assessee, leading to a decision to remand the case for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312919 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJU KUMARI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 1316/Del/2024 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2014-15) Sh. Pradeep Goel 60/20, First Floor, Prabhat Road, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 बनाम / Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1) Central Circle, New Delhi èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AGTPG6068M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Sanju Kumari, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT.DR Date of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 O R D E R PER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, New Delhi [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’],under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) dated 24. 01.2024. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assesse read as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) -29, New Delhi is contrary to the facts and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding assessment order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the office of ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi is void ab initio being time ITA No. 1316/Del/2024[Sh. Pradeep Goel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 – barred as the same has been passed after the expiry of limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,10,000/- being cash foundfrom the premises of the assessee ignoring the reply filed on 19.07.2019 explaining that cash found belongs to the assessee and group entities of SRM Group and the same is duly reflected in the books of accounts of respective entities/individuals. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,43,333/- based on seized document A-1, R-4 Page 4 treating the same as unaccounted rental receipts. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 62,67,000/- and Rs. 5,97,000/-based on seized document A-1, R-4 Page 5 treating the same as unexplained expenditure, 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account ofexpenditure incurred in cash based on seized document A-1, RS-1 Page 20 and 21 treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 18,00,000/-based on seized document A- 1, R-4 Page 6 treating the same as unexplained income 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 5,73,63,000/- and Rs. 11,17,000/- based on the seized document basis of seized document A-1, R-4, Page 6 treating the same as expenditure out of unexplained sources. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier.” 3. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) reveals that it is an ex parte order. Ld. CIT (A) notes several opportunities being given to the assessee for filing submissions before it, but none ITA No. 1316/Del/2024[Sh. Pradeep Goel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 – was availed. The assessment order reveals several additions made to the income of the assessee resulting in the assessed income being to the tune of Rs.7.19 Crs as opposed to income returned by the assessee of Rs.32.86 lacs. 4. The additions made, we have noted, are the result of information coming in the possession of the Revenue on account of search action undertaken on the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 15-10-2013 during the course of which various incriminating material was found which formed the basis of the different additions made to the income of the assessee. 5. The plea of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us was to give another chance to the assessee to plead its case before the Ld.CIT(A). He contended that the facts relating to the different additions needed to be clearly explained and brought on record to the Ld.CIT(A) to demonstrate the incorrectness of the various additions which had caused immense problem to the assessee. That if not given a second chance the assessee will be grossly and adversely effected. He prayed therefore for restoration of the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A). 6. No plausible reasons have been given before us for not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) however considering the huge quantum of addition confirmed, that too without the assessee being heard, we are of the view that interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given another opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given ITA No. 1316/Del/2024[Sh. Pradeep Goel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 – an undertaking to cooperate if given a second chance. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the fresh round of proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and not abuse the trust reposed on it. 7. In the light of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 30/04/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 30.04.2025 S. K. SINHA Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Delhi "