GAGAN DEEP SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings, both before the AO and the CIT(A). However, to provide a final opportunity and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the appellate order and restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee had made significant investments and earned income but failed to file a return of income for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the transactions and lack of creditworthiness, leading to an assessment under Section 144 after issuing notices that were not complied with. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal could be adjudicated on merits given the assessee's persistent non-compliance with notices and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 193,Section 194A,Section 194H,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 09.12.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 11.12.2018 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.
A.Y. 2011-12 Gagan Deep Singh 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:
1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions of the appellant on the income tax portal.
2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that reopening of assessment of the appellant is invalid in law.
3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless 3 Appeal Centre ought to have held that learned assessing officer erred in passing order u/s 147 read with section 144 by making addition on different ground for which assessment was reopened.
4. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer, as unexplained investment.
5. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,00,969/- by the Assessing Officer, as interest income on estimated basis.
6. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of Rs. 12,41,480/-u/s 234A, and Rs. 12,97,260/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. It was noticed by the ld.AO from the information available with the Department that the assessee had made investment to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- in units of Mutual Funds, Rs.28,00,000/- in Time Deposits with Banking company and earned Income/Receipts of A.Y. 2011-12 Gagan Deep Singh Rs.2,00,969/- u/s 193, 194A, and 194H of the Act pertaining to the year under consideration. However, he had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2011-12.It was also noticed from the past returns that the assessee did not have creditworthiness to make such a huge transactions of Rs.48,00,000/- in the year. Hence, transactions to the tune of Rs.50,00,969/- remained unexplained and unaccounted for in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued/served. But, the assessee failed to reply to all of them. The assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act.
4. In the subsequent appeal, as noted by the ld.CIT(A) despite as many as six notices issued by him, none were complied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
Before us, the ld.AR has requested for sending the matter back to the AO for proper appraisal and adjudication with the assurance that the assessee would comply with the notices. The ld.DR objected stating that the assessee was habitual defaulter.
We find that the appellate order has also been passed in ex- parte manner on account of non-compliance by the assessee and none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal
involved have been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) could not evaluate the points A.Y. 2011
12. Gagan Deep Singh of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is equally important that it is a fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. The framework of the Act and the income tax proceedings rely heavily on the cooperation and active participation of the taxpayer. In the present case, the assessee failed to demonstrate even a minimal level of responsibility in monitoring the e-filing portal for updates and notices related to its appeal. Despite the issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act by the ld.CIT(A), no response was made or explanation submitted.
Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the entire matter back to the file of the AO in the light of above discussion, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance the arguments and submissions before him, so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.AO for passing the assessment order de novo after allowing adequate A.Y. 2011-12 Gagan Deep Singh opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the assessee who is also directed to attend the assessment proceedings before the AO without fail and cooperate with him in furnishing relevant details etc as sought by him.
In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
