HARISH BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5853 & 5854/Del/2016 [Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08] AND ITA Nos.7343 & 7344/Del/2018 [Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08] Shri Harish Bhasin Vs ACIT, T-1, Rajouri Garden Central Circle – 3 New Delhi – 110 027 New Delhi PAN : AALPB 2977 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. and Shri Himashu Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 03.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]:

The above captioned four appeals are preferred by the assessee, from which two appeals in ITA Nos. 5853 & 5854/Del/2016 against the same order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld.

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) CIT(A)], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’] arising out of the assessment orders dated 29.03.2016 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) under section 254/144 of the Act for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 and other two appeals in ITA Nos.7343 & 7344/Del/2018 against the same order dated 15.09.2018, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi, under section 250 of the Act arising out of the penalty order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2006- 07 & 2007-08. 2. Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 are as under: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal in spite of the fact that Department has no proof for service of notice under section 148. 2. The presumption of service under Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, would not be available where the party has denied the service, as per Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment which have neither the learned AO nor the Learned CIT(A) referred nor this

Page 2 of 8

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) argument dealt with in their orders, inspite of having been given in Written Arguments to both of them. 3. Dismissal of Appeal because nothing is stated on merits, is irrelevant when the issue before the Learned AO, as per ITAT orders and as argued by the assessee was service of notice under section 148, question of merit will come only when the learned AO passes this hurdles and shows the proof for service. It is, therefore, prayed that orders of the Learned CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and assessment quashed, the same being without service in time of preliminary and foundation notice under section 148.”

Page 3 of 8

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) filed in time. Return for assessment year 2005-06, however could not be filed because his youngest son Sh. Parth Bhasin suffered a major road accident on 19.06.2004. Thereafter proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') were initiated vide issuance of notice dated 05.06.2009. Since no notice under the instant referred section was served upon the assessee, the proceedings were culminated vide ex-parte order dated 27.12.2010. Since, no representation was made before the CIT(A), addition made by the Assessing Officer stood confirmed by the order of CIT(A) 14.12.2011 which was restored to the AO by the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 29.05.2014. In the 2nd round, the AO again confirmed the ex-parte assessment 7. order vide his order dated 29.03.2016. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s order while the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal. On appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the ITAT order was set aside for reconsideration. Against the instant above referred Hon'ble Delhi High Court order, an SLP, Diary No. 10883/2025 was filed by the assessee, which stood dismissed by the Apex Court. 8. The ld AR submitted that since, the assessee had never raised a ground of merits hence was unable to place the documents on merits.

Page 4 of 8

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) Now, owing to the observation made and liberty granted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 09.12.2024, the aforesaid documents, being relevant for judicious appreciation of the facts of the case and disposal of the present appeal preferred by the appellant, are being filed and prayed for its admission. The ld AR relied on the following: CIT vs Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd: 239 CTR 263 (Del).  CIT v. Chittosho Motors: ITA 741 of 2010: 11 taxmann.com 81 (P&H)  Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd vs. CIT: 133 ITR 231 (P&H)  CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.: 332 ITR 396 (Del)  CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del)  CIT vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del)  CIT vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del)  Jatia Investment Co vs. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal)  Electra (Jaipur) Ltd vs. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del Trib.)  Y. W. C. A. of India vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del Trib.) 9. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. We find that the reasons enumerated by the assessee is compelling for admission of the additional documents. The hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd: 239 CTR 263 (Del) admitting the additional evidences under Rule- 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules had held as follows:

Page 5 of 8

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) "13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is filed by one of the parties to the appeal and it need not to be a suo motto action of the Tribunal. The aforesaid rule is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that this evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect." 11. In the above factual matrix of the case, we find that the assessee never could furnish any documents/evidence to argue its case on merits. We are of the considered view that the reasons for not filing the above additional evidences are very plausible and sufficient and are crucial for judicious disposal of the present appeal. These additional evidences are therefore admitted in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 12. In such facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of larger justice, it would be judicious to remit the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication taking into consideration the additional documents/evidences. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and

Page 6 of 8

ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 Shri Harish Bhasin vs ACIT (A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08) consider/appreciate the additional documents/evidences and thereafter adjudicate on the issues at hand. The assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and represent his case and present documents/materials as and when required by the CIT(A). The grounds are decided on the aforesaid terms. 13. The other two appeals against the penalty order in ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 is likewise resorted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal in ITA Nos.5853 & 5854/Del/2016 and ITA Nos. 7343 & 7344/Del/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Page 7 of 8