NUTAN CHANDANI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR
Jh xxu Xkks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1325/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14
Nutan Chandani
7-CHA 5, Jawahar Nagar,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOBPC9927P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Mrs. Pallavi Joshi, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 27 /02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2025
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Appellant-assessee filed an appeal before Learned CIT(A), NFAC,
Delhi challenging assessment order dated 29.05.2023relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing that despite ample opportunities afforded to the appellant for furnishing of explanation in respect of the grounds of appeal, the appellant failed to comply with the same.
2
3. Vide assessment order, the Assessing Officer had computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,16,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), while arriving at the conclusion that the assessee had received Rs. 4,16,00,000/- from various parties by offering them higher returns, and the said amounts remained unexplained despite opportunity.
4. Arguments heard. File perused.
5. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings before Learned CIT(A) for want of sufficient time, and as such, matter be remanded for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Department has referred to the impugned order and submitted that ample opportunities were afforded to the appellant before deciding the appeal, but the appellant failed to comply with the directions contained in the notices issued by the office of Learned
10. The case of the assessee was reopened by way of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to the said notice. He also did not respond to the subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, but, he responded to letter dated 04.02.2023. 11. The reason for reopening of the case, as mentioned in the assessment order, is receipt of unexplained money to tune of Rs.
4,16,00,000/-, whereas the appellant had filed return of income declaring total income only to the extent of Rs. 1,99,960/-.
4
Further, notices came to be issued to the assessee. During assessment proceedings, statements of various persons were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. In those statements, the deponents stated to have given huge amount in cash to the assessee on promise of return, but, as further stated by them, the assessee did not return them the amounts received from them.
In view of the allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement, FIRs are stated to have been lodged by 6 persons against the assessee.
12. During assessment proceedings, the assessee denied to have received any amount from the concerned persons. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to disclose the amounts received by her, as per statements of the aforesaid persons. That is how, assessment order was framed.
13. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations and the reply put forth by the assessee therein denying to have received any amount from any such person, matter needs to be remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh.
However, because of non diligence on the part of the assessee before Learned CIT(A), we impose cost of Rs. 2500/-. Cost to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Funds”.
5
15. Copy of challen/ receipt in proof of deposit of cost to be presented before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on restoration.
16. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. ¼xxu xks;y½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 06/03/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Nutan Chandani, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(1),Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
6
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.1325/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत