Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [herein after referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 14.11.2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-
1. The impugned assessment is bad in law and on facts.
2. The Ld. Income Tax officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.2,61,36,104/- as transaction in bank account of assessee as income without concluding of the clarification, ignoring the fact.
3. The Ld. Tax Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.2,61,36,104/- on account of assessee return income of the assessee ignoring the facts and submissions of the appellant.
The Ld. Income Officer ought to have given proper opportunity to the appellant to make a representation in this regard and consider the same on merits before arriving at an adverse conclusion.
5. The impugned assessment is bad and unfair on the principle of natural justice. 6. The appellant cannot complied reply of any notice issued by the Hon’ble CIT Appeal” due to health issue and not awareness about faceless process of compliances. 7. The appellant is praying for one more opportunity for complying facts.”
The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the delay of 111 days. The Assessee in his application for the delay stated as under :-
We have gone through the submissions made by the assessee and we find that there is reasonable cause for delay in appeal for the reason that the Assessee is totally illiterate and not even now how to put signature. In the delay condonation petition the Assessee has put his thumb impression which show that he is an illiterate. In the interest of justice and fair play we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
4. Coming to the merits of the appeal we find that the assessee has agitated the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,61,36,104/- in respect of unexplained investment. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. The appeal is disposed of on hearing the Ld. DR. Perusal of the record shows that the notice u/s. 148 was issued on assessee on 31.03.2021 for reopening the assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee did not respond notice u/s.148 of the Act and subsequent notices and, therefore, the assessment was completed u/s.144 r.w. 147 of the by the AO making an addition of Rs.2,06,36,104/- based on the information generated through AIMS portal of ITBA that the assessee has made cash credit transaction during the F.Y. 2012-13 into his bank account. Thus, the AO made addition u/s.69 of the Act as the assessee did not respond to the notices. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non compliance of the assessee. We find from the record that the assessee has submitted following submissions :-
In view of the above submissions of the assessee we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee afresh and in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the assessee for the reason that both the assessments as well as proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) were exparte. Thus we restore this appeal issues in appeal of the AO to examine afresh in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2025.