RAHUL KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3817/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after verifying the genuineness of the transactions and passing a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal emanates from an order of the NFAC, which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The AO had passed an ex-parte order, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal observing that the deposits constituted sale proceeds of land in cash by his father were not tenable. The assessee failed to offer any explanation for non-compliance with AO's notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper verification of the transactions and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the transactions?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.08.2025Pronounced: 05.08.2025

Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, New Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065162576(1) Order dated 27.5.2024 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Heard both the parties and perused the records.

3.

Upon careful consideration, I find that AO has passed the exparte order in this case and in appeal Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the deposits constituted sale proceeds out of sale of land in cash by his father is not tenable as being cash transactions, no material evidence has been adduced to prove that indeed the cash deposits constituted sale proceeds of land. Therefore, the assessee failed to offer any creditable explanation as to why he failed to comply with the multiple notices issued by the AO. Thus, he confirmed the AO’s action. In view of the factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after verifying the genuineness of the transactions. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and discharge his onus of explaining and substantiating the genuineness of the transactions by providing all the relevant documents/evidences before him to enable him to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

4.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05.08.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →