SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI V. COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI

ITA 4929/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sunder Jindal, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which had sustained the addition of Rs. 13,74,000 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13. This addition was based on unaccounted cash deposits in his bank account, which the AO treated as income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had initially reopened the case under section 147 after discovering the cash deposits and issued notices under section 148, to which the assessee did not respond. The First Appellate Authority upheld the AO's decision due to non-prosecution by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a detailed examination of the assessee's contentions and evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781277 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR; DEEPAK KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 4929/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 SUNDER JINDAL, VS. NFAC, A-3/55, Sector-8, NEW DELHI Rohini, Charderpriya Apartment, Delhi – 110 085 (PAN:ACGPL4890H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Deepak Kumar, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069736563(1)dated 17.10.2024 relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed his return of income for AY 2012- 13 declaring total income of Rs. 1,92,000/-. However, the Department was in possession of the information that the assesse had made cash deposit of Rs. 13,74,000/- in his saving bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce during the FY 2011-12. Therefore, the AO reopened the case u/s. 147 of the Act after taking necessary approval from the competent authority and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The assesse did not file return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO issued various notices to the assessee to file return of income and to file submission/details in respect of Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e source of cash deposit. However, the assessee had not complied to any of the notices issued to him. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s. 144 of the Act on the basis of details available on record. The AO made the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 13,74,000/- to the total income of the assesse and treated the same as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the addition on account of non-prosecution. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 4. Upon careful consideration, I note that it was the contention of the assessee that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- without examining and considering the bank account of the assesse on the basis of which action u/s. 147 of the Act was taken and without making adequate enquiries, without considering and evaluating the original return of income filed by the assessee. It was the further contention of the assessee before me that the assessee has took bank loan on 18.06.2008 of Rs. 31,72,191/- and assessee has withdrawn all his loan processed amount from his bank account on very next day i.e. 19.6.2008 and 25.6.2008. In this behalf, assesse has attached the cash flow statement from FY 2008-09 to FY 2011-12 as per details given below:- Cash deposited : Rs. 50,34,300/- Cash withdrawal : (-)Rs. 12,66,475/- Net cash deposited : Rs. 37,67,825/- Loan cash deposited : (-) Rs. 31,72,000/- Excess Cash Deposited : Rs. 5,95,825/- In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO on account of non- prosecution, after giving several opportunities to the assessee. I have given my Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s contentions before the lower authorities and the documents/evidences placed before meas well as Revenue’s contention in support of the impugned addition. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to verify the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and also examine and verify the documents, evidences of the assessee with regard to his contention and if it is found in order, then issues may be decided in accordance with law, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings and provide all the necessary documents, evidences to him, if any for deciding the issues in dispute. 5. The instant assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.10.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SR Bhatnagar Date: 24-10-2025 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) By Order, 5 DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "