DEVI RAM SAINI,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), FBD, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5096/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's return and afford an opportunity for submissions before completing the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen and retired Army personnel, filed a return of income late in response to a notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer made additions for cash deposits and bank interest without considering the assessee's reply. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment was completed without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee and considering the filed return of income. Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 11.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 339 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 339 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is a retired Army personnel and a senior citizen. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA 5096/DEL/2026 DEVI RAM SAINI referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2019, the assessee filed return of income in November, 2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment on 27.11.2019 before the assessee could furnish reply along with supporting documents. The AO, vide assessment order dated 27.11.2019, made an addition of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, and made further addition of Rs.21,083/- in respect of bank interest. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued three notices to the assessee, all the notices were received on the email address of the Counsel of the assessee. The Counsel neither responded to the notices nor informed the assessee about the same. Hence, no submissions could be made on behalf of the assessee. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the additions. He submits that the assessee can explain source of cash deposits in his bank account. He prayed for an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits and also the bank interest.

4.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the department submitted that there was considerable delay in filing of the return of income by the assessee. The notice was issued in March, 2019 and the return was filed in November, 2019 i.e. much beyond the time given to the assessee for filing of return of income. The AO completed the assessment without considering the return of income. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the addition and dismissing appeal of the assessee.

5.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I am of considered view that this matter needs to be re-examined by the AO. The AO shall consider the return of income filed by the assessee and complete the assessment thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

6.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 06th of July, 2026.

Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 06-July-2026

ITA 5096/DEL/2026 DEVI RAM SAINI

Copy to: DEVI RAM SAINI, UNCHAGAON SAHUPURA ROAD, NEAR 1 MANISH HOSPITAL BALLABHGARH, FARIDABAD-121004, HARYANA ITO WARD 1(1), FBD, CGO COMPLEX, NEW INDUSTRIAL 2 TOWNSHIP (NIT) 4, FARIDABAD, HARYANA - 121001, 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →