VARUN JAIN,GHAZIABAD V. ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 1748/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Varun Jain against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary grievances raised by the assessee included the denial of a virtual hearing, the misattribution of a deposit of Rs.13,10,000 to his account which actually belonged to a different entity (Swati Gems), and the failure to recognize that a cash deposit of Rs.9,50,000 was from legitimate business activities and property sales. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed these issues and had not provided a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present his case, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43528 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANDEEP PANWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH SINHA; ANISH DHINGRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"I.T.A.No.1748/Del/2024 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1748/Del/2024 िनधा\tरणवष\t/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Varun Jain Kh. No.1128, Gali No.3, Meerut Road, Mamraj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), CGO II, Papur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.AJXPJ1894K अपीलाथ\u0012 Appellant \u0014\u0015यथ\u0012/Respondent िनधा\u0007\bरतीक\rओरसे /Assessee by Shri Umesh Sinha, Adv. & Shri Anish Dhingra, CA राज\u0012वक\rओरसे /Revenue by Shri Mandeep Panwar, Sr. DR सुनवाईक\rतारीख/ Date of hearing: 10.01.2025 उ\u0018ोषणाक\rतारीख/Pronouncement on 24.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 19.02.2024 for the AY 2017-18. Assessee has raised the following grounds: - A. “That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting an opportunity of virtual hearing despite asking for the same. The principles of natural justice have not been following while passing the impugned orders against the assessee. I.T.A.No.1748/Del/2024 2 B. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions of the assessee regarding the deposit of the amount of Rs.13,10,000/- was deposited in the Bank of Maharashtra A/c No.60161397448 in the account of Swati Gems which is a different entity altogether with different PAN. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to deal with the submission of the assessee in the impugned order. C. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the deposit of cash by the assessee in his account was generated from the business of the assessee and received by the assessee from sale of the property cumulatively amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order without granting an opportunity of virtual hearing despite asking for the same. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the deposit of Rs.13,10,000/- was made in the bank of Maharashtra Account No.60161397448 belongs to Swati Gems which is a different entity altogether with different PAN number and, therefore, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee since it is not made in the bank account relating to the assessee. Ld. Counsel further submits that in respect of cash deposit of Rs.9,50,000/- it is submitted that the said amount was generated from out of business of the assessee and also from the sale of property. I.T.A.No.1748/Del/2024 3 4. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the order is very cryptic and the addition was made by the Assessing Officer observing that the amounts are unexplained and undisclosed. Probably this addition was made as the assessee did not provide details in respect of the cash deposits during the course of assessment proceedings. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) also did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the contentions of the assessee. Perusal of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order shows that though the Ld. CIT(A) extracted the submissions made by the assessee he has not really gone into the various contentions raised by the assessee in his written submissions. The observations and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are also very cryptic. Therefore, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, I feel it appropriate that this appeal should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Thus, the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer which was contested by the assessee in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment of the issues in appeal after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I.T.A.No.1748/Del/2024 4 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2025 Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.01.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi "