GIRDHARI LAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), FARIDABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.282/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13)
Girdhari Lal,
S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, H. No. 729,
Village Baroli, Ballabgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana 121004
PAN: AFRPL-7291-N
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer-1(3)
New CGO Complex, NH 4, NIT, Faridabad
Haryana 121001
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
13.01.2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
13.01.2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals),
Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 28.10.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment order dated 11.12.209 passed u/s.
143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)had made addition on account of unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.18,14,000/- in bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). A perusal of impugned order
2
shows that the same has been passed in ex-parte proceedings. The CIT(A) had issued eight notices to the assessee during the period starting from February 2021
to December 2023. The notices sent by CIT(A) were not responded by the assessee.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on merits.
3. The assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia challenging addition on merits, as well as on the legal ground viz. assessment order passed without DIN. Since, the assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A), it is a fit case for levy of cost for non compliance of notices. Keeping in view, the age of assessee, which is stated to be 95 years, I restrain myself to impose cost.
Without commenting on merits of the issues raised in appeal, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
4. The assessee is directed to respond to notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.
5. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 13th day of January,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 13.01.2025
NV/-
3
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Dy./Asstt.