GURDEEP SINGH H.NO.25, WARD NO.2 VILLAGE MOJUKHERA TEHSIL ELLENABAD ,HARYANA vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNITS NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 SIRSA , HARYANA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “ए” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी राजपाल यादव, उपा�� एवं �ी कृणव� सहाय, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ 2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurdeep Singh बनाम The ITO H.No. 25, Ward No. 2 Ward-1, Village Mojukhera Tehsil-Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana Haryana �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EBMPS2210D अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 09/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, where the, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on the ground that the appeal was not filed within 30 days on receipt of demand notice and against that order, the assessee had filed the present appeal before us.

"1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and confirming the order of Assessing Officer, without giving any opportunity of hearing either by way of personal hearing or by way of sending the notice for hearing on the portal/email.id. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of 2. delay for 56 days wrongly stated by the Ld. CIT(A) as 82 days, which was on account of reasonable cause the and CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee being uneducated person, not well conversed and could not access the portal/email and,

2 as such, was not able to communicate with the Assessing Officer with regard to the ongoing assessment proceedings. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgment of Jurisdictional High 3. Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of innovation and Entrepreneurships CM- 3543-CWP-2024. Notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the assessment as framed by 4. the Assessment Unit, NFAC deserves to be quashed, since the notice u/s 148, dated 01.04.2022 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa and, whereas, the assessment has been framed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC and in view of the binding judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Jatinder Singh Bhangu in CWP No. 15745/2024, dated 19.07.2024 and in the case of Pankaj Kumar Garg in CWP 12163/2024, dated02.08.2024.

5. a). Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal

, the reopening of the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 is bad in law as there is no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. b). That the confirmation of addition on merits by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be deleted.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off."

3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee received a notice u/s 148 for deposit of the cash in two bank accounts with Axix Bank Ltd, wherein the cash deposits in both the bank accounts were Rs. 2,00,11,818/- and on receipt of notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income declaring an income of Rs. 8,748/- on 08.02.2024.

3 3.2 Further, our attention was invited to the fact that, though, in the assessment order, it has been stated by the Assessing Officer that no compliance was made through show cause notice, dated 30.01.2024 as issued by the Assessing Officer, but it was brought to our notice that on receipt of the show cause notice, issued by the Assessing Officer, dated 30.01.2024, a detailed reply alongwith relevant documents, with regard to the self-agricultural holding and land taken on lease from different parties, alongwith their jamabandi, khasra, Gardavari, copy of the bank statements and month wise cash flow were submitted which is placed on record. It was contended that the Ld. AO has erred in not discussing that reply and for which the necessary evidence of filing the reply alongwith annexures by way of email has been enclosed and also placed on record.

3.3 It was further contended that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was late by 54 days. It has wrongly been mentioned that there is delay of 82 days, because the period of 30 days have to be excluded during which, the appeal can be filed and the reason for delay were adequately explained, which have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in paragraph two, page 2 of the order.

3.4 It was further contended before us, that notice u/s 221, dated 27.04.2024 for payment of taxes was issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa for payment of disputed demand and only then it came to the knowledge of the assessee that some order has been passed by the AO. In fact, assessment order was also not served by way of personal service or by way of post. In this respect, an affidavit of the assessee has been filed before

4 us, contending that the earlier counsel namely, Sh. Surinder Kumar Bansal did not intimate him about the order passed by the AO as it was sent on his portal and it was only when the notice u/s 221, dated 27.04.2024 was received by the assessee from the AO regarding the payment of disputed demand then, the assessee obtained the copy of the assessment order and filed the appeal before the CIT(A) immediately, for which, detail is as under:- i). The order of AO received through Income tax portal 09.02.2024 ii). Appeal had to be filed before CIT(A) 10.03.2024 iii). Appeal was filed on 03.05.2024 iv. Delay 54 days

5 6. On merits, it was argued before us that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any decision on merits and has out rightly dismissed the appeal on account of delay. It was further brought to our notice that as stated above that detailed reply alongwith number of documents were filed before the AO and copy of the reply alongwith annexures was submitted to the AO and copies of which have been placed before us. The Assessing Officer has passed the order without considering the said detailed reply, alongwith necessary evidences. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed anything on merits. Thus, it was argued before us that the case of the assessee may, please, be set aside to the file of the AO to be decided denovo after considering the reply of the assessee in the interest of justice and equity.

6 9. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2025.