GAJINDER SINGH CHOUDHARY,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gajinder Singh Choudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-64/A, Shivaji Park Punjabi Bagh, Ward 62(1), New Delhi-110026. Vs Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002. PAN- AAHPC3959M Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pryanshu Singhal, CA & Shri Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Revenue by Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 30.09.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the different orders, Assessment Order dated 23.12.2019 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 62(4), Delhi (hereinafter

ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 Gajinder Singh Choudhary referred to as the ‘AO’) and penalty order dated 01.04.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , pertaining to Assessment Years in both the appeals (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee (ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025) are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act which is bad both in the eyes of law as well as on the facts of the case. 2.. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal. (ii) That there was no delay in filing of appeal as the appeal was filed within 30 days from the receipt of certified true copy of the assessment order. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act without having valid reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. (ii) That the said reasons to believe have been recorded without there being any independent application of mind. (iii) That the case has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and against the facts on record. (iv) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings on the basis of reasons to suspect and not having formed reasons to believe. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which was without obtaining necessary valid approval u/s 151 of the Act from the prescribed authority and that it was granted in a mechanical manner. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment which was initiated without issuing and serving mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act thereby making the assessment order invalid and liable to be quashed. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of interest income of Rs. 9,464/-.

ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 Gajinder Singh Choudhary 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on car of Rs.1,38,525/- on account of non- production of bill of the car without providing the assessee adequate opportunity for production of the same, thus, ignoring the principle of natural justice. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- on account of purchase of property. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,98,803/- being 8% of the difference between credit entries in HDFC Bank A/c of Rs. 2,05,26,405/- and transportation receipts of Rs. 80,41,372/-. 11. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

2.1 Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee (ITA No.- 8006/Del/2025) are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is bad both in the eyes of law as well as on the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal. (ii) That the delay in filing of appeal was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 24,17,958/-under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO ignoring the fact mere additions per se cannot be the basis for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of the assessment proceedings. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 Gajinder Singh Choudhary 3. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessment year and involve identical facts and circumstances, they are being disposed of by this common order 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2012-13 on 28.05.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 1,71,650/-. On the basis of information received by the Department regarding deposits of cash amounting to Rs. 35,10,000/- in assessee’s bank account, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2019. As no compliances was made by the assessee to various notices, therefore, re- assessment was completed vide order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 23.12.2019, at assessed income of Rs. 83,18,442/-, after making various additions. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was delayed by 1226 days. Since no application of condonation of delay had been filed, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted an affidavit of the assessee explaining the circumstances due to which the appeal was filed belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been submitted therein that the assessment order was not served to the assessee electronically through the Income Tax portal. Hence, a request was made to the AO by the assessee to provide a certified copy of the assessment order vide letters dated 08.08.2022 and 23.05.2023. Upon receipt of the certified copy on 26.05.2023, the

ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 Gajinder Singh Choudhary appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed without any further delay on 01.06.2023. Since, the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the assessment order, no application for condonation of delay was filed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On the issue of condonation of delay, we note that the screen shot of the portal and copies of letters requesting for certified copy of the assessment order, submitted before the AO, have been placed on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bonafide reasons and, therefore, deserves to the condoned. 7.1 Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration on merits after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and extend full cooperation during the proceedings before the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.- 8006/Del/2025 8. Since the quantum appeal (ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025) has been restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment, the penalty levied in this appeal (8006/Del/2025) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being consequential thereto,

ITA No.- 8005/Del/2025 & 8006/Del/2025 Gajinder Singh Choudhary cannot survive at this stage. Accordingly, the penalty matter is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to be initiated afresh in accordance with law, if required. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 01.06.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,