Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.03.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Sumit Kumar Vs. ITO learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits as the AO erred in initiating assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same has been made arbitrarily and in contravention of the facts of the case and is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing reasonable opportunity to represent the case and ignoring the adjournment application submitted by appellant .
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without observing the principal of natural justice.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and allowing the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 13,56,800/- being amount of cash deposited in the bank account which was made by the Id A.O. as income from other sources. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits since the Ld AO has not provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant to prove his case.”
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assessing officer on the basis of the AIR information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 13,56,800/- during the F.Y. 2010-11, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Requisite notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, a notice u/s 144 of the Act was also issued on 3.12.2018.
However, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 147 red with Section 144 of the Act
Sumit Kumar Vs. ITO and made addition of Rs. 13,56,800/- and accordingly assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 13,56,800/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee and no adequate opportunity was granted by the authorities below. He contended that the authorities below ought to have provided adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Learned Sr. DR, on the other hand, opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
It is seen from the record that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the assessing authority. Therefore, looking to the facts of the present case and to sub-serve the principles of natural justice it is deemed fit and proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. The impugned order is therefore set aside and assessment is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose only.
Sumit Kumar Vs. ITO 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 20.09.2022.