DEEPAK MANGLA (HUF),AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 693/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 April 2026AY 2013-149 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with notices uploaded on the ITBA portal and that the department failed to provide evidence of service. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment and adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned additions made under Section 69A and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that notices and orders were not properly served, leading to ex-parte decisions. The Tribunal noted a lack of evidence of proper service by the department.

What were the issues?

Whether proper service of notices and orders was effected on the assessee, and whether the assessment and penalty proceedings were vitiated due to procedural irregularities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 148,Section 156,Section 143(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 20.04.2026

Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi as per the following details:

692 & 693-Chd-2024 2

Sr. ITA No. & AY CIT(A) Order Authority [CIT(A) ] No. dated 1 693/Chd/2024 15.09.2023 CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal 2013-14 Centre (NFAC), Delhi 694/Chd/2024 CIT(A), National 2 6.11.2023 Faceless Appeal u/s 271 (1)(i)(c) Centre (NFAC), Delhi

2.

First, we shall deal with the grounds taken by the Assessee in ITA No. 693/Chd/2024, which are as under:

1.

That the LD. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and 1448 in issuance of notice u/s 148 and also confirming the income as assessed by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 12,91,800/-. 2. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 while making an addition amounting to Rs.1092000/- on account of Addition u/s 69A of the income Tax Act on flimsy grounds in the absence of any cogent and tangible material and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the income tax act, 1961 on Account of purchase of

692 & 693-Chd-2024 3

property from M/s Barnala Bulders in the absence of proper reason to believe and any cogent and tangible material and without application of his mind and on the behest of the superior authority and same deserves to be declared as void-ab- inito. 4. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer is not justified in obtaining prior sanction of the PR Commission of Income Tax i.e Higher authority in a mechanical manner and such approval is sanctioned without application of mind and the same deserves to be declared as invalid. 5 The proceeding as initiated are void as there was no proper service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee. 6. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer has erred in not issuing and serving the notice u/s 143 (2) of the income tax act, 1961 upon the appellate. 7. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer has erred in not serving the notice of demand u/s 156 of the income tax act 1961 upon the appellate within the time prescribed. 8. That the Id. Assessing officer has erred in not serving the assessment order us 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the income tax act, 1961 upon the

692 & 693-Chd-2024 4

appellate within the time prescribed and the same deserves to be quashed annulled. 9. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in not serving the notice u/s 250 of income Tax Act, 1961 for hearing. 10. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in not serving the Appellate Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 within the time prescribed. 11. The appellate craves leave to add to, alter, vary, modify or otherwise amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally disposed off. 12. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief.

3.

Though the Assessee has taken as many as twelve grounds of appeal but the main plea taken by the Assessee is that there was no proper service of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 / 144B within prescribed time limit, demand notice u/s 156, notice u/s 148, and service of appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on the Assessee. The Assessee submitted that the notices / orders were uploaded by the Department

692 & 693-Chd-2024 5

on ITBA portal only, and the Assessee could not access it and, thus, in the absence access to the notices /orders, the Assessee could not file the details / submissions. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions by simply confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case, which is against the principle of natural justice.

4.

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order and the arguments / request made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee during the proceedings before us. We find that the Assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Department on ITBA portal, therefore, the same was not complied with. Furthermore, the Department has not brought any evidence on record to the fact of service of notice on the Assessee. The appeal of the Assessee was dismissed by passing ex-parte order by lower authorities.

6.

We are of this considered view that in the fitness of things, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making assessment de novo after

692 & 693-Chd-2024 6

giving due and adequate opportunity as required under the law. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh on merit, by considering the submissions, documentary evidence produced by the Assessee and the relevant material available on record. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer shall afford due, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes.

ITA No. 694/Chd/2024

8.

The grounds taken by the Assessee are as under; -

1.

That the LD. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 14/09/2022 is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer erred while imposing penalty

692 & 693-Chd-2024 7

amounting to Rs.337428/-on account of Tax sought to be evaded of the income Tax Act on flimsy grounds in the absence of any cogent and tangible material and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in not serving the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the income tax act, 1961 upon the appellate. 4. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in not serving the notice of demand u/s 156 of the income tax act 1961 upon the appellate within the time prescribed. 5. That the LD. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing officer has erred in not serving the order us 271(1)(c) of the income tax act, 1961 upon the appellate within the time prescribed and the same deserves to be quashed annulled. 6. The appellate craves leave to add to, alter, vary, modify or otherwise amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally disposed off. 7. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief. 9. In this appeal, the Assessee is aggrieved with the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271 (1)(i)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the

692 & 693-Chd-2024 8

order of the Assessing Officer and has erred in not serving the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the Assessee within the time prescribed and as such the same deserves to be quashed.

10.

The Ld. AR of the parities have fairly submitted that the issue of penalty-imposed u/s 271 (I)(i)(c) will depend upon the de novo assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, this appeal also needs to be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer.

11.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Since we have restored the quantum appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, the penalty proceedings initiated under the Act and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are only consequential in nature. In such circumstances, the same do not survive at this stage. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

692 & 693-Chd-2024 9

12.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced on 20. 04.2026.

( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.के.”

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →