SOHIAB,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(3), NEW DELHI

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.

Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and again notice u/s 148 of the Act was served by affixture.

Since, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. In absence of any explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of purchase of property to the tune of Rs.19,77,600/-, the Assessing Officer, applying the provisions of section 69C of the Act made addition of Rs.19,20,000/- to the total income of the assessee. He also considered the deemed income of Rs.1,60,000/- for computing the total income and accordingly determined the taxable income of Rs.21,37,600/-.

“4. Application for admission of Additional Evidence

During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of Additional Evidence detailed as under:-

Required information and duly falls under Rule 46A. Hence, it is requested to kindly accept the additional evidences as detailed below- i. Copy of the bank statement ii. Cash Book iii. Bank Book iv. Sales Ledger v. Purchases Ledger vi. Copy of the purchase bills vii. Copy of the Medical papers 4. The Ld. CIT(A) called for comments of the Assessing Officer, who submitted that despite number of opportunities granted to the assessee, he did not appear, therefore, the additional evidences should not be admitted. However, the Assessing Officer gave his report, which was confronted to the assessee. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition on merit.

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in Law and on facts in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 19,77,600/- u/s 147/144 of the Act.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in Law and on facts in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- by holding as deemed income upto the exemption level u/s 147/144 of the Act.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in Law and on facts in making and confirming the above addition u/s 147/144 of the Act by ignoring any one of the following facts: 3.1 That the assessing officer was not having jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act or 3.2 By without providing the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act or 3.3 By without giving material on the basis of which the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act or 3.5 By ignoring the fact that the various notices etc. as mentioned in the order were either not served upon the assessee or reasonable time was not granted to attend the proceedings. 3.6 By ignoring the fact that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to attend the assessment proceedings as the mother of the assessee was seriously ill and ultimately died on 27th March, 2018. 3.7 By ignoring the fact that the Principles of Natural Justice were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in Law and on facts in making and confirming the addition by ignoring the facts that the material on the basis of which action was taken u/s 147 of the Act does not exist as per the report sought u/s 133(6) of the Act from the office of Department of Delhi Archieves vide letter Dt. 24/11/2017 and as per information received vide letter Dt. 30/11/2017 from the Department of Delhi Archieves.

5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in Law and on facts in making and confirming the addition by ignoring the fact that the permission u/s 151 of the Act was granted in a routine manner by non application of mind as the permission was granted on the same day it was sought by without perusing the material etc for taking action u/s 147 of the Act.

6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law in charging interest amounting to Rs.44,928/- u/s 234A and interest amounting to Rs. 5,22,288/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and was not aware of the complicated Income Tax provisions. Further, no notice was received by the assessee from the AO for which there was non-compliance. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 13th December, 2021.