ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH MAHAGUN REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal / ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dated 19.03.2025, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of the assessment order dated 16.11.2019 passed under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, Ward ITA No.- 3664/Del/2025 Savitri Tyagi 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2012- 13.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case: The AO had AIR information, that the assessee had deposited Rs. 54,00,000/- in her savings bank account and the assessee had not filed her return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, on 30.03.2019 and the same was served upon the assessee. Further, notices U/s 142(1) dated 16.05.2019 & 22.07.2019 alongwith questionnaire were issued to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in her bank account and to furnish evidence in support thereof, but no reply was received from the assessee. Thereafter, final opportunity of being heard was given to assessee by the AO vide show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act dated 23.08.2019 & 23.09.2019 fixing the date of compliance on 06.09.2019 & 27.09.2019 respectively requiring the assessee to explain as to why order shall not be passed ex-parte and Rs. 54,00,000/-be not added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income. But, on the given date, no ITA No.- 3664/Del/2025 Savitri Tyagi reply was received by the AO and the AO treated the cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income u/s 69 of IT. Act, 1961 and added the same to the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-appearance on five occasions (as per the details given in the appellate order), when the case was fixed for hearing.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the us.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was an old lady aged above 71 years of age and due to lack of understanding, compliance could not be made before the AO /Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR requested that one more opportunity may be given and the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment. The Ld. AR further submitted that he gives an undertaking that the assessee will fully co-operate before the AO during the assessment if the matter is set aside to his file.

The Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection to the above request of the AR.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the assessment as well as the appellate order were passed ex parte. The assessee, is an old lady and has requested for giving one more opportunity to represent her case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to give one more ITA No.- 3664/Del/2025 Savitri Tyagi opportunity to the assessee to represent her case, we set aside the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and as per law. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear during the assessment proceeding as per the undertaking given by the Ld. AR.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th NOVEMBER, 2025.