SABITA GUPTA,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO,WARD-2, ROHTAK
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “जी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी एम. बालागणेश, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.2897/िदʟी/2024(िन.व. 2016-17)
Sabita Gupta,
2/331 Aggarwal Colony,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana 124507
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AXRPG-0010-E
बनाम Vs.
NWR-W-(54)(2),
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,
Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park,
Rohtak, Haryana 124001
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Ms. Mansi Jain & Ms Sakshi Rustogi, Advocates
Department by : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
20/05/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
20/05/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 17.04.2024, for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Ms. Rano Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that she has not pressing grounds of appeal no. 2 to 5 and 7. In respect of grounds of appeal no. 6 and 8 assailing addition of Rs.3,04,92,500/- made u/s. 69A of the 2
Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), she submitted that the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) as the notice u/s. 148
of the Act and the subsequent notices were never served on the assessee. During
First Appellate proceedings, written submissions were filed however, the assessee could not place on record relevant material in support of her submissions. She prayed for restoring the issue back to AO and assured that the assessee would appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish relevant documents to substantiate her contentions. She further submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case in her favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee.
3. Per contra, Shri Manish Gupta, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
The ld. DR submits that the CIT(A) had given ample opportunity to the assessee to make submissions. The assessee had filed submissions before the CIT(A), now, there is no room for the assessee to reargue the matter before the lower authorities.
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has made statement at Bar that she is not pressing grounds of appeal no. 2 to 5 and 7. The assessee in the aforesaid grounds had raised legal issues challenging reopening of assessment. In the light of statement made by ld.
Counsel for the assessee, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 5 and 7 are dismissed as not pressed.
5. The other effective grounds raised in appeal on merits of the additions are ground no. 6 and 8. The assessee has not filed return of income for the impugned
3
assessment year. However, there were cash deposits to the tune of Rs.3,04,92,500/- in her savings bank account. The AO initiated proceedings u/s.
147 of the Act on the basis of information from AIMS. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was purportedly issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021. There was no compliance to said notice by the assessee nor the assessee responded to subsequent notices issued to u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The contention of assessee is that the notices issued by the AO were never served on her. During First Appellate proceedings though the assessee had filed written submissions, nevertheless, no documentary evidence to substantiate the contentions were filed. The CIT(A) rejected assessee's unverifiable submissions. Considering entire facts of the case,
I deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
5. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.
The assessee shall furnish her current/operational email id for service of notice to the AO within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 20th day of May, 2025. (M. BALAGANESH)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 20/05/2025
4
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Dy./Asstt.