DEEPAK KAUSHAL ,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 608/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee needed one more opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of investment, as no details were filed before the lower authorities. Both the lower authorities' orders were set aside and remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 making an addition of Rs. 5,44,23,750/- on account of unexplained investment. The assessee had not filed details or documentary evidence before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence for unexplained investment when no evidence was filed before lower authorities, and whether the orders passed ex-parte by lower authorities should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain and Shri Aditya Gupta, CAs
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/08/2025Pronounced: 22/08/2025

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Deepak Kaushal, Income Tax Officer, 4128, Indarprastha Part -2, Ward-1(1), Near Sainik Colony, Vs. Faridabad. Sector-49, Faridabad-121001, Haryana. PAN-CNJPK8583J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Gunjan Jain and Shri Aditya Gupta, CAs Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10151037 dated 30.04.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Before us, the Counsel for the assessee appeared and requested for the adjournment on the ground that the paper book and additional evidences are required to be filed in the instant case as both the lower authorities have passed the order ex-parte. The request of the assessee is considered. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the order of the AO as well as of the appellate order, we find that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u /s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.5,44,23,750/- on account of unexplained investment Deepak Kaushal vs. ITO which stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as no details /documentary evidences were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that in the present case, the assessee needs one more opportunity as no details could be filed before any of the lower authority and now assessee is requesting to filed additional evidences before us in support of the claim of the source of investment. In view of these facts, we set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and remand to the file of the AO to pass the order denovo afresh. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences in support of claim of source of investment made. With these directions, grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

As the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →