MANGU SINGH,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 28.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has erred in violating the principles of faceless appeal as envisioned for the benefit of honest taxpayers. The faceless appeal mechanism was established to ensure fairness, honesty, and judicial propriety, and to minimize unnecessary litigation. However, the actions of the learned Assessing Officer (AO) and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, have resulted in avoidable disputes contrary to this intent. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, have erred in initiating and confirming the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 147. The reopening was done without application of mind, proper verification of information, and solely based on assumptions, presumptions, and borrowed satisfaction. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AD and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, have erred in initiating and sustaining proceedings where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, accorded approval under Section 151 of the Act in a routine and mechanical manner, without due application of mind. Such approval is contrary to the mandate of Section 151 and vitiates the validity of the proceedings. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in passing the assessment order hastily without providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to explain his case. Despite filing an adjournment application on March 23, 2022, at 11:15 AM, seeking a hearing on March 24, 2022, the assessment order was passed prematurely. Furthermore, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, failed to issue a notice of hearing under Section 250 to the email address registered in the appellant's profile, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in treating the cash deposits of 150,00,500/- in the appellant's savings bank account (No. 32714938631 with State Bank of India, Tapukara Branch) as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and taxing the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. The addition is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, and bad in law. 6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in dismissing the appeal hurriedly without awaiting the implementation of the amendment to Section 251 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which took effect on October 1, 2024. The amendment empowers the CIT (A) to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication in appeals against assessments made under Section 144. This would have facilitated the appellant in avoiding multiple proceedings before different appellate forums.

7) That the appellant craves his right to add, annul, amend, alter, withdraw and/or substitute any/ or all the grounds of appeal before the finalization of the appeal.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual was amongst the non-filers of return as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue was in possession of an information via NMS details under ‘P-Z’ category. During the year under consideration, the assessee had made deposit to the tune of Rs. 50,00,500 in his bank account with S.B.I., Tapukara. In contemplation of this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 08.05.2020 and the assessee was asked to file a return u/s. 148 of the Act. Further notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued. Various notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued by the office of the AO vide his assessment order, but the assessee was through out non-compliant. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 50,00,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the action of the AO, as the assessee was non-compliant before him also. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued various notices to the assessee vide para 3.3 of the appeal order, 17.03.2023, 28.03.2024, 16.04.2024, 10.06.2024 and 29.07.2024.

3. The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) preferred the present appeal before us with a delay of 37 Days.This delay was communicated to the assessee, and he filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. On appointed date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee as the counsel of the assessee seeks an adjournment on the ground of marriage in his family. The bench has gone through the adjournment application and the same is not found to be in order and the ground for seeking adjournmentalso as no evidence of marriage etc. has been filed before us. As discussed, (supra), the assessee has already established a track record of non-compliance before the lower authorities and a similar pattern in terms of taking matter casual is being demonstrated here also. In view of this, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected and the application for condonation of delay is also rejected.

Order is pronounced in the open court on the 6thday of February 2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 06/02/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur

Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 06.02.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 06.02.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order