KULDEEP,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2458/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in e-rickshaw hiring, received compensation for agricultural land. The AO made an addition for cash deposits during demonetization u/s 69A via an ex-parte order u/s 144 due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) upheld this ex-parte assessment, as the assessee again failed to respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment by the AO and its upholding by the CIT(A) were valid when the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard regarding cash deposits during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 139,Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 10/12/2024

(A.Y.2017-18) Kuldeep, RZF-766/16, Rajnagar II, Palam Colony, Delhi 110077 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: BVEPK-3064-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 44(5), Civic Centre, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 11002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 10/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 08.12.2023, for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of statement of facts in Form no. 35 filed before the CIT(A) reveals that the assessee is engaged in the business of hiring e-rickshaws to different persons and collecting hire charges on daily basis. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has also received compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. The assessee filed return of income in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) declaring gross income of (AY 2017-18) Rs.6,86,060/-. While making assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition for cash deposits during demonetization. The AO has further observed that the assessee has neither filed any return of income u/s. 139 of the Act, nor in response to any notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued during assessment proceedings. The AO made addition of Rs.20,75,576/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.12.0219 passed u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to notices or sought adjournment. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings decided appeal of the assessee upholding the assessment order.

3.

Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

4.

The assessee is directed to respond to the notice served upon him, without fail.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →