ACHIN,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 142/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were not adequately examined, especially regarding whether receipts were business income or rental income. Due to the assessee's inability to appear before the AO, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for proper fact-finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to non-disclosure of rent receipts. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte addition of Rs. 57,44,840/- as unreported rental income. The CIT(A) also denied relief, disbelieving the claim that receipts were disclosed as business turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the receipts were in the nature of business income or rental income, and whether proper opportunity was given to the assessee to present facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 44AD,Section 194IB,Section 194I,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: CA (VC)
For Respondent: DR (VC)
Hearing: 23.06.2026

ITA No.142/DDN/2026 ACHIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.142/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 ACHIN, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX H.No.790, Lane No.08, Subhash Nagar, (APPEALS), P.O. Clement Town, Dehradun 238002, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1) Uttarakhand. Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. PAN No. CVEPA5658P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Daksh Dawar, CA (VC) Revenue by Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC) Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 23.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 22.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee’s case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that apparently the assessee had not disclosed rent receipts of Rs.57,44,840/- in his Income tax return. Apparently, the assessee had also not responded to statutory notices issued by the assessing authorities. It is seen that before the AO the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued from his office and therefore an ex parte order was framed against the assessee. Needless to say, the Ld. AO added Rs.57,44,840/- as unreported rental income. 1

ITA No.142/DDN/2026 ACHIN 1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has disbelieved the assessee’s contention that the impugned receipts have already been disclosed as turnover of business, with income shown u/s 44AD of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded on page 17 of his order that the assessee could not establish the provenance of the receipts before the Ld. AO and thus, no relief was due to him at first appellate stage.

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with lengthy and detailed grounds which challenge the action of Ld. AO.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that the assessee could not appear before the Ld. AO because the notices were being sent on an e-mail id which was not in use by the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee tried to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) simply went by the Ld. AO’s finding and did not grant any relief to the assessee. It was strongly emphasized by the Ld. AR that the assessee was in the hospitality business and due to an error, the TDS had been deducted u/s 194IB/194I of the Act. It was the further submission that these receipts were not rental in nature but actually in the nature of business and the same had been duly offered as turnover of business.

2.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the TDS had been made presuming such receipts to be rental in nature and not business. 2

ITA No.142/DDN/2026 ACHIN 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the facts in this case have not been thrashed out and in any case for a receipt to be taxed under the head “business and profession” or as “rental income” would require careful fact-finding. The situation is not helped by the fact that for whatever reason the assessee could not appear before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of facts and thereby passing a reasoned assessment order. The assessee would do well to be prompt in attending to the notices, which would be issued by the Ld. AO.

4.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →