SH. RATTAN SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5044/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. A de novo assessment order is to be passed, adhering to principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information of cash transactions amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- found during a survey at another entity's premises. The assessee did not file a return for the assessment year and subsequently failed to comply with assessment proceedings and the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and if an addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- on the basis of impounded documents was sustainable without proper nexus and opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 151,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms Shilpa Gupta, CA, Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5044/Del/2026 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Rattan Singh, Income Tax Officer, Village Jajru, v/s Ward 2(1), Faridabad, Faridabad. Ballabgarh, Haryana – 121004. PAN: AKAPD5674M Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms Shilpa Gupta, CA Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Department by Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2026

ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal:

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘the Ld. CIT(A)’, for short] passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) for Assessment Year (‘AY’, for short) 2013-14.

2.

It is observed that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 369 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application for

2 ITA No.5044/Del/2026 Shri Rattan Singh vs. ITO condoning the said delay along with an affidavit. Upon perusal of the same and by hearing the rival contentions, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground of there being a sufficient cause for the said delay. Delay condoned.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, which are void ab initio, bad in law and without jurisdiction, as the mandatory conditions prescribed under sections 147 to 151 of the Act have not been complied with, including absence of valid “reason to believe”, non-application of mind and invalid sanction u/s 151. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- u/s 69A on the basis of alleged impounded loose/dumb document found during survey at the premises of Dagar Vishwa Bharti Shiksha Samiti, without establishing any nexus with the assessee and despite categorical denial by the assessee, and in absence of any independent corroborative evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO, rendering the addition arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition without ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the alleged impounded document relied upon by the Ld. AO was neither supplied to the assessee nor confronted, and no opportunity of cross- examination or rebuttal was provided, thereby vitiating the entire addition. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C, which is consequential and excessive. 5. The appellant craves to add to, amend alter or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4.

Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened based on the information from office of the ITO Exemption, Faridabad

3 ITA No.5044/Del/2026 Shri Rattan Singh vs. ITO dated 21.03.2016 that during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of Dagar Vishwa Bharti Shiksha Samiti, certain documents were impounded pertaining to the assessee in which various cash transactions, unaccounted business expenditure and financial transactions have been found amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- during the year under consideration which were not declared in the return of income and, hence, income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. AO issued and served upon the assessee notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021, after duly recording the reasons for reopening. The assessee filed his return of income in response to the said notice. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO, then, passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 27.03.2022 determining the total income at Rs.6,50,000/-, after making an addition of Rs.6,50,000/- as unexplained money not substantiated by the assessee with cogent documentary evidences. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who, vide ex parte order dated 28.02.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant during the assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld.CIT(A), who, then dismissed the

4 ITA No.5044/Del/2026 Shri Rattan Singh vs. ITO appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of non-prosecution. Before us, the Ld. AR prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO for the reason that non-compliance was not due to negligence or wanton, but, due to genuine hardship caused to the assessee. The ld. DR vehemently opposed to the same.

6.

On considering the rival contentions, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation with the direction that the assessee shall strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO is also directed to pass a denovo assessment order on the merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21st August, 2026 dk

5 ITA No.5044/Del/2026 Shri Rattan Singh vs. ITO Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Dr, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True COPY// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Delhi Benches

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →