VIRENDER,GURGAON V. ITO WARD 4(5), GURGAON

ITA 3991/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Virender, against the order of the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was directed against an assessment order passed under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was claimed to have been made without adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee contested the additions made to his income, which were based on alleged cash deposits and income from commission or brokerage. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee in previous proceedings and allowed the filing of additional evidence, ultimately deciding to remand the case back to the A.O. for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22869 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: TANYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 69

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3991/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Virender S/O Ram Niwas R/o Tyagi Mohalla Near Shiv Mandir Kila Wara Badshahpur, Gurgaon Haryana – 122101 PAN NO.AKCPV6363R Vs. Income- Tax Officer Ward- 4(5), Gurgaon 122001 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Tanya, Advocate Ms. Shivani, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT DR Date of hearing: 06/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee isdirected against the order of the National Faceless Appeals Centre Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”] vide order dated 23.04.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 pertaining to arises out of the assessment order 2 dated13.11.2019under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The appeal is time barred by 68 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. He also filed an affidavit to support the contention of the application. Ground is sufficient and delay is condoned in filing the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order dated 13.11.2019 having been passed by Income Tax Officer Ward 4(5), Gurgaon ('AO') under section 147/144 of the Act without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 1.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal in light of the statement of facts and annexure filed along with appeal in the form of bank statement, thus being contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) read with 250(4) of the Act, bad in law and liable to be set aside. 1.2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged default of non-compliance in the appellate proceedings not being wilful and malafide, but due to inadvertent mistake and 3 lapses on the part the office of the Authorised Representative who have filed the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5) Gurgaon (\"AO\") completing the impugned assessment under section 147/144 vide order dated 13.11.2019 without serving the statutory notice under section 148 of the Act on the appellant in accordance with provisions of section 282 of the Act, thus the impugned assessment is invalid, band in law and liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred in initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act based upon incorrect reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- in hisbank account and received income from commission or brokerage during the year, thus the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law and illegal. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147/144 of the Act without appreciating that the same is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and being passed contrary to material on record in form of bank statement. 4 5. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,48,06,991 made in the assessment order by the Ld. AO being all credit entries during the year without appreciating that the appellant had an opening balance of Rs. 94,80,062 In said bank account as on 01.04.2011 which cannot be added in the year under consideration. 5.1 That the Ld. AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had made cash deposit only to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- (as against Rs. 19,00,000/- alleged in the assessment order) in bank account on various dates, and justification of the same is was given in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) that the same is from the earlier cash withdrawals made from the bank account and too that extent bank statement was duly submitted before the CI(A), thus the addition of cash deposit is liable to be deleted. 5.2 That the Ld. AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had received sum of Rs. 31,75,000/- from his mother through banking channel as advance for purchase of property, therefore cannot be added to total income of the appellant under section 69 of the Act. 5.3 That the Ld. AO erred in making arithmetical error while computing the all-credit entries in bank account which resulted into excessive and arbitrary addition in the hands of the appellant which is liable to be deleted. 5 6. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO erred on facts and in law in charging interest under Sections 234A/234B & 234C of the Act. 7. That the AO erred on facts and in law in initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the information available with the department that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs 19,00,000-/ on various date in his bank account maintained with Gurgaon Gramin Bank and also received income from commission during the Financial Year 2011-12. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after taking the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income- Tax Gurgaon. The assessee has not filed any reply in the compliance of the notices. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment making the addition of Rs 1,48,06,994/-u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) who vide his order dated 23- 04-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. She also submitted 6 that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided by the authorities. 7. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee did not take part in the proceedings before the authorities. 8. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by A.O.as well as Ld. NFAC the assessee did not appear before either of the authorities for which ex-parte orders have been passed by the A.O as well as the NFAC. 9. The assessee has also filed the application to file the additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Application moved by assessee to file the additional evidence is allowed. Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC and Assessing Officer have passed the ex-parte order, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue afresh as per fact and law. The assessee is alsodirected to attend the proceedings before the learned Assessing officer and co- 7 operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-06.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "