HAKAM SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-SANGRUR, SANGRUR
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT &
SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1130/CHD/2024
Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2019-20
Hakam Singh,
C/o Tej Mohan Singh,
Advocate,
#527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh
बनाम
Vs.
The ITO,
Ward - Sangrur
èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BDWPS5185E
अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent
( PHYSICAL HEARING )
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing
:
05.06.2025
उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement
:
03 07.2025
आदेश/Order
Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Ld.
CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under:
1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the appellant has failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal by 212 days which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that while filing the appeal in Form Number 35, it was specifically mentioned that the grounds of condonation of delay are attached and a prayer was made to condone the delay which has not been considered and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the reason for delay in filing the appeal being army personnel posted in Srinagar having connectivity issues in the area as well as non-service of notice at the correct address and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits leading to upholding of the addition of Rs.63,97,895/- which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and framing the assessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Act without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions required for initiation of proceedings and completion of assessment and as such, the same are without
1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur juri iction and hence deserve to be quashed as such.
6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information, incorrect facts and conjectures as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
7. That initiation of proceedings was mechanical and without any application of mind much less independent application of mind, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was an invalid notice and assumption u/s 147 of the Act was without juri iction.
8. That in absence of any valid approval obtained mechanically under section 151 of the Act, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147/144B of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such.
9. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in in upholding of the addition of Rs.
14,00,000/- for alleged unexplained investment in purchase of alleged units of Mutual Fund of ‘Computer Age Management Service Limited'
when no such investment was made by the assessee duly explained during the course of appellate proceedings and as such upholding of the addition is arbitrary and unjustified.
10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) has further erred in upholding of the addition of Rs.50,37,895/-under the head
1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur
'salary' when no such salary was ever received; bank entries duly explained during the course of appellate proceedings which was made the basis of addition by Assessing Officer and as such upholding of the addition is arbitrary and unjustified.
11. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) has further erred in upholding of the disallowance of standard deduction of Rs.40,000/- which is statutorily allowable and as such upholding of the addition is arbitrary and unjustified.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee during the proceedings before us summitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). It was submitted that it was due to the reason that the Assessee is employed by the Indian Army and at the given point of time he was posted in Srinagar and he did not get notice issued by the Assessing Officer.
Since there was no compliance by the Assessee during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer took the entire retirement proceedings / benefits of the Assessee
(the Assessee retired in the same year) as unexplained income of the Assessee and made addition thereof. The 1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur
Assessing Officer got a letter u/s 133(6) from the Defence
Accounts Office, clearly stating that the entire amount which was added by the Assessing Officer was received by the Assessee as his retirement benefits because of his services rendered in the Indian Army. The Assessing
Officer also made entire addition of Rs. 14 lacs from alleged unexplained investment in purchase of alleged units of mutual funds of Computer Age Management
Service Limited (‘CAMS’) while the Assessee has denied having made any such investment.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi.
In filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 212 days for which the Assessee filed a condonation of delay letter requesting the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay.
The Assessee also filed written submissions on merit before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the simple ground that it was a delayed appeal. He has not taken into consideration any written submissions on merit.
1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur
Aggrieved, with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a detailed written submissions on both the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced as under:- Grounds of appeal 1-4 are against the dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay.
Present appeal has been filed by the assessee the dismissal on the ground of delay of 212 days considering it to be barred by limitation. During the course of appellate proceedings, an application for condonation of delay who submitted which has been incorporated in the order of the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) at page 1 1 of his order. Contents of the application are reiterated. The assessee is an officer of the Indian army who retired on 31.10.2018. After his retirement, he joined Defence Security Corps in Srinagar on 30.12.2019. During the course of his services to the nation, he was posted at Srinagar when his case was being scrutinised and further appeal was to be filed after passing of an ex-parte order by the assessing officer. Due to the frequent connectivity issues, it was difficult to communicate and as such this led to the filing of the appeal belatedly. As such, there was a reasonable cause for filing of the late appeal which be condoned in the facts of the case.
Grounds of Appeal 5-8 are not pressed
Ground No.9 is against the addition of Rs.14,00,000/- for alleged unexplained investment in purchase of alleged units of Mutual fund of "Computer Age Management Service Limited"
when no such investment was made. The assessing officer observed in the assessment order at page 5 that the assessee's purchase of units of mutual funds of Rs. 14,00,000/- of 'Computer Age Management Service Ltd' is unexplained as the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidences on this issue. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was explained as under:
1130-Chd-2024
Hakam Singh, Sangrur
1 - Meaning of RTA :-