Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.13,27,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to 'Abnormal cash deposit during demonetization period.' The AO completed proceedings by making an addition of Rs. 1,08,40,000/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's part submissions, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Vs Income-tax Officer, House No.11, Street No.23, Ward-44(6), Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 026. PAN: AIIPS0365E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 ORDER
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
This appeal by the appellant assessee is against the order dated 3rd January, 2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in appeal arising out of the order dated 24.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-44(6), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’), for assessment year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017 declaring the income at Rs.13,27,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reasons, ‘Abnormal cash deposit during demonetization period.’ Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 16.08.2018 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 02.05.2019 containing a detailed questionnaire was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2019 was issued, but, the assessee did not file the reply. On the basis of the information, the ld. AO completed the proceedings vide order dated 24.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.1,08,40,000/-.
The appellant assessee, against the order dated 24.12.2019 of the ld. AO, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2025.
Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee preferred the present appeal.
The ld. Authorised Representative for the appellant-assessee submitted that the appellant is an individual in the business of wholesale and retail trade of fabrics under the name and style of Yoges Trading Company. As normal trend of the business, 15-20% is cash sales which is regularly deposited in the bank account from time to time. In response to the notices, the appellant made part submissions and requested adjournment for making further submissions which was not granted. The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions.
The ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A).
From examination of record, in the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the ld.CIT(A), vide order dated 3rd January, 2025, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution/non-filing of specific submissions. The appellant assessee claims that the ld.CIT(A) failed to consider part submissions in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above material facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 03.01.2025 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.