VIPIN KUMAR,AMBALA CITY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMBALA, AMBALA

ITA 326/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vipin Kumar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) for want of prosecution due to non-service of proper notice to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires stating points in dispute and recording reasons for conclusions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had made an addition of Rs.10,24,000 to the assessee's income based on an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, which was contested by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712336 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJMOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 326/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vipin Kumar, C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Vs The ITO, Ward – 5, Ambala. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: APGPK9064B अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 05.02.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 309 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay contending therein that impugned order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.326/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 2 was passed ex-parte which was not in the knowledge of the assessee. We find that ld. CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and no proper notice was served upon the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that AO got an information that assessee has made deposit of Rs.17,58,000/- in his bank account maintained with HDFC Bank during financial year 2011-12. The AO has reopened the assessment and initiated an enquiry qua the source of deposit and ultimately, he made an addition of Rs.10,24,000/- by way of an ex-parte order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. Section 144 would contemplate that it authorizes the AO to pass an assessment order on the basis of best of his judgement. Further, we find that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act provides that ld. CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in respect of her conclusion on those points. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.326/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 3 The ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to follow this mandatory procedure, hence, her order is not sustainable. Since an error crept in the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) but explanation of the assessee qua the source of cash is also not available in the assessment order and CIT (Appeals) would have to call for a remand report from the AO, therefore, instead of instituting proceeding at two difference places, namely, the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication of appeal and submitting a remand report by the AO, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of AO. Thus, we set aside both the impugned orders and restore this issue to the file of AO. The ld. AO shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee before re-adjudicating the issue. The assessee will be at liberty to raise objections against re-opening of the assessment. With the above observation, this appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 29.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.326/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "