SIMRANJEET KAUR BHATTI,LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), SHRI MUKTSAR SAHIB

ITA 666/ASR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti against the order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal originated from an order by the AO, Ward-2(2), Muktsar, under sections 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue in the appeal was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the first appellate authority due to non-compliance with notices during the appellate proceedings. The assessee had not filed any return of income for the year in question, leading to proceedings under section 147 of the Act, initiated by a notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021, alleging the assessee's involvement with bogus scripts and fictitious profits. The tribunal found that the appeal had not been adjudicated on its merits and remanded the matter back for a thorough examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787519 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJEET SINGH SYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, 2640 Gurdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab. [PAN:-DAAPB9062E] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Muktsar. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 07.10.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward-2(2), Muktsar, passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 27.03.2022. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2 2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of the assessee relates to the dismissing the appeal by the ld. first appellate authority for non-compliance of notices issued in course of appellate proceedings. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under appeal and proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was initiated, vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021, on the ground that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Scripts of PNC Fincorp Ltd and has received fictitious profit amounting to Rs.26.64 lakhs. 3.1 In absence of any response from the assessee, to various notices issued, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.27.17 lakhs being the amount of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.2 In course of first appellate proceedings various notices were issued from the office of the ld. CIT(A) and even though adjournments were granted the assessee was not able to comply within time allowed and on account of this non-compliance, the appeal has been dismissed. 4. Now, in course of appeal before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that proper opportunity of hearing has not been granted by the ld. first appellate authority and in spite of the adjournment being requested for furnishing all the requisite papers and documents, the same has not been allowed. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 3 5. The ld. AR further submitted that all relevant supporting documentary evidences are available to prove the genuineness of the transactions doubted by the AO and in absence of any adjournment being granted as asked for, the said documentary evidences could not be produced before the ld. first appellate authority, and he prayed for an opportunity of hearing for production of the evidences and for representing his appeal on merits before the ld. first appellate authority. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that in the instant case; the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits on the ground contained in Form 35 and in absence of proper documentary evidences it was not practically possible for the ld. first appellate authority to arrive at a judicial conclusion. 7.1 As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal on merits of the case and we also direct the assessee to furnish all the documentary evidences relied upon, alongwith necessary particulars and written submissions and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings for proper disposal of the appeal. 7.2 The assessee shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued as per provision of section 282 of the Act, and also in e-mail id as stated in form 35. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4 8. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all legal issues are left open. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21.11.2025 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com "