MANOJ NAGAR,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 DELHI, NEW DELHI

As the facts are identical in all these years we hereby dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order taking ITA No.2511/Del/2025 relevant to AY 2012-13 as the lead case, for the sake of convenience:-

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Арреals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee failed to comply with his notices and was not interested in pursuing the appeal. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts confirming an invalid assessment. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO's action of holding the assessee to be trader in real estate and, accordingly, treating the exempt capital gains on transfer of agricultural land as profits and gains of business. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income taх (Аррeals) erred in law and on facts confirming the AO’s action of treating the sale proceeds of land amounting to Rs.15 lakh as income and denying deduction for the cost of acquisition as well as any other expenditure that the assessee may have incurred in connection with the transfer. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income taх (Aрpeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO’s action of treating the alleged excess credits of Rs.28,17,779/ in the assessee's bank accounts as the latter's unexplained money and deeming the same to be income u/s 69A of the I.T.Act. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income taх (Аррeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO's action of denying the benefit of deduction of Rs.1,10,7971 towards interest on borrowed capital u/s 24(b) of the Income tax Act while computing 'income from house property' 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Аррeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO’s action of treating the exempt agricultural income of Rs.1,23,664/, shown by the assessee, as ‘income from other sources'.

Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income dated 05.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,86,650/-. Pursuant to the search and seizure operation carried out on Shri Mahesh Nagar and his associates and the business concerns of Shri Robert Vadra, u/s 132 of the Act dated 04.03.2020, a warrant of authorisation for search was issued to the assessee and the last warrant of authorisation was executed on 05.11.2020. Subsequent to the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 24.08.2021 requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income. In response to the said notice the assessee failed to file his return of income. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed his return of income dated 01.02.2022 declaring income at Rs.1,03,830/-. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act seeking for various details of sale and purchase of properties on the basis of the incriminating material seized during the search operation. The Ld. AO duly considered the assessee’s submission and passed the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act dated 31.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.46,56,070/-, after making various additions/disallowances.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has raised various grounds both on legal as well as on the merits of the case before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the order of the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the assessee’s contention stating that several notices were issued to the assessee on various dates which are tabulated hereinunder for which the assessee has made no compliance:-

The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the grounds raised by the assessee for non- compliance. The Ld.CIT(A) has also held that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim on the merits as well. Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee stated that the assessee has filed various documentary evidences before the lower authorities which were not considered. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessee has all documentary evidences to substantiate his claim.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences neither before the lower authorities nor before us and prayed that the order of the lower authorities be upheld.

After duly considering the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not made compliance before the Ld.CIT(A), which fact also emanates from the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Though the Ld. AR contended that all documentary evidences were filed in support of the assessee’s contention, the same were not placed before us. It is also pertinent to point out that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order not deciding the issue on the merits of the case and has also not dealt with any of the documents alleged to have been filed by the assessee. In order to extend the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A), we deem it fit to restore the issues back to

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2026.