Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) as notices were allegedly not served. Cash deposits of Rs. 3,04,92,500/- were found in the assessee's savings bank account. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 and completed assessment ex-parte under Section 144.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a denovo assessment, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. Grounds challenging the reopening were dismissed as not pressed.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment is valid when the assessee claims non-service of notices and whether the matter should be restored for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
69A, 148, 142(1), 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
(A.Y.2016-17) Sabita Gupta, 2/331 Aggarwal Colony, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant Bahadurgarh, Haryana 124507 PAN: AXRPG-0010-E बनाम Vs. NWR-W-(54)(2), Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Rohtak, Haryana 124001 Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Ms. Mansi Jain & Ms Sakshi Rustogi, Advocates Department by : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क� ि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.
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 (AY 2016-17) 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.
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 (AY 2016-17) 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.
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.