LALROCHUANGA PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-30(5), DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 10.06.2024, for assessment year 2017-18.

A perusal of assessment order reveals that for the assessment year 2017-18 no return of income was filed by the assessee. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.24,12,500/- in his Axis Bank account with Aizwal Branch, Mizoram. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated (AY 2017-18) 02.02.2018 was issued to the assessee. In response to said notice, the assessee at the outset pointed that he is from a Schedule Tribe community from the State of Mizoram, hence, his income is not taxable under the provision of section 10(26) of the Act. Further, on merits he explained that the cash deposits in the bank during demonetization period were from the cash in hand available with him and from business proceeds. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected both contentions of the assessee and completed assessment u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 05.12.2019 and made addition of Rs.24,12,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia assailing jurisdiction of the ITO Ward-30(5) Delhi. The CIT(A) vide impugned order confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed appeal of the assessee. Hence, present appeal by the assessee.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for upholding the same. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has failed to substantiate source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 24,12,500/- during demonetization period in his Axis Bank account.

Submissions made by Ld. DR heard and orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee/appellant is a member of Mizo (Lushali) Tribe, a Schedule Tribe as defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. In support of this claim, the assessee had furnished documentary evidences before the CIT(A). This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The assessee is engaged in sole proprietary business of trading in hardware goods and building material at Aizwal, Mizoram. As per information received by the AO, the assessee had made cash (AY 2017-18) deposits amounting to Rs.24,12,500/- in his Axis Bank account at Aizwal Branch, Mizoram during the period of demonetization. The fact that the assessee is resident of Aizwal, Mizoram is also established from the address mentioned in the assessment order as well as the order of CIT(A). Since, the assessee is residing in Aizwal and is carrying his business in Aizwal, even the alleged cash deposits were in assessee’s bank account at Aizwal Branch, Mizoram, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5) Delhi had no jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order dated 05.12.2019 is without jurisdiction. No material has been placed on record by the Revenue to show as to how Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5) Delhi, assumed jurisdiction over the assessee and passed the assessment order.

Thus, in light of the facts discussed above, I am of considered view that the assessment order dated 05.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5) Delhi is without jurisdiction, hence, non est.