VIMAL ARORA,GURGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

ITA 5352/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vimal Arora, the appellant, who received a commission/brokerage income of Rs. 10,00,000 from Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2010-11 but did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2011-12. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after recording reasons in writing and obtaining necessary approval under section 151. Notices under sections 148 and 142(1) were issued, to which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the AO passed an order under sections 147 read with section 144, assessing the income at Rs. 10,00,000. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785800 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S. TOMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS; Assessment record; Competent authority; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 5352/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2011-12 VIMAL ARORA, VS. ITO, WARD 31(1), K-13/25, 3RD FLOOR, Civic Centre, New Delhi DLF PHASE-2, GURGAON, HARYANA (PAN:ASDPA9869N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077664051(1) dated 24.6.2025 relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and as per AIR details available with the system the assessee had received commission/brokerage income of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. during the FY 2010-11 but did not file ITR for AY 2011-12. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after recording reasons for the same in writing and obtaining necessary approval u/s. 151 of the Act from the competent authority. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 23.3.2018. In response to the notice, the assessee did not file any ITR. The notices were issued to the assessee u/s. 142(1) of the Act from time to time and the assessee had not made any compliance to the notices. Therefore, the AO passed order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 09.12.2018 determining total assessed income at Rs. 10,00,000/- by making additions. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. As regards jurisdictional issue is concerned, upon careful consideration, I note that AO issued notices under Section 148 on 23.11.2018 and under section 142(1) of the Act on 28.11.2018 and through affixation on 29.11.2018. However, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and there is nothing on record brought by the assessee to Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e show that the reasons for reopening of the case were denied by the AO at any point. In fact it is the assessee who has not participated in the entire assessment proceedings. Assessment record reveals that the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after recording reasons or the same in writing and obtaining necessary approval u/s. 151 of the Act from the Pr. CIT-I, NewDelhi. Nothing to the contrary has been produced by the assessee in the appeal proceedings, thus, the Ld. CIT(A) /NFAC rightly dismissed this ground. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I affirm the action of the AO and dismiss the jurisdictional ground raised before me. 4. So far as the claim for TDS credit of Rs. 1 lac is concerned, after perusing the records and hearing both the sides, I deem it fit and proper, in the interest of justice, to set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to verify the same with respect to the details as reflected in Form 26AS and, if it is found in order, the same should be allowed, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of the being heard to the assessee. 5. The instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31.10.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SR Bhatnagar Date: 31-10-2025 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 "