DEEPAK,SONIPAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds of merits assesse has raised jurisdictional ground of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 r.w.s. 148A of the Act and that the reopening was barred by limitation, hence, invalid. We find from the submissions and the material before us that the additions have been made by the assessing officer on account of cash deposits of Rs.58,44,000/- in the bank account of the assesse and assessing officer has observed that assesse had failed to give any explanation and documentary evidences of the source of deposit and the same has been sustained by the NFAC by the impugned order and we find that NFAC mentions of a show cause notice being issued to the assesse and assesse had filed written submissions on 08.10.2025.

Before us ld. Counsel has demonstrated on the basis of submissions that relevant documentary evidences including confirmations from the donor father were filed to establish the gift received from father and the receipt of money from identified individuals. However, both the ld. Assessing Officer and NFAC, have very summarily reached conclusions without any observations on the merits of the submissions and documentary

In the light of aforesaid discussion, though ld. DR had defended impugned orders, we find that the same cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal for statistical purposes. The issue on merits as well as law are restored to the files of ld. Assessing Officer to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse and after taking into consideration the submissions and documentary evidences of assesse, pass an order afresh.