VINEET GOEL ,DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 34(4), DELHI, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एफ”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
एम. बालागणेश, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.2822/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Vineet Goel,
B-19, Sawan Park, Delhi 110052
PAN: APZPG-9406-G

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant

बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer-Ward 34(4)
Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
14/01/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
14/01/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 19.04.2024, for assessment year
2017-18. 2. A perusal of impugned order shows that the CIT(A) had issued as many as six notices to the assessee through email spanning over the period starting from February 2021 to April 2024. The assesee failed to respond any of the notices

2
issued by the CIT(A). In absence of any controverting material, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order.
Further, on perusal of assessment order it is evident that even during assessment proceedings the assessee failed to respond to notice issued u/s.
143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’) and the subsequent notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer
(AO) was constrained to complete assessment invoking provisions of section 144
of the Act.
3. A perusal of Form No. 35 and grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A) it emanates that the assessee has not taken any ground of non service of notice issued by the AO. Thus, it can be deduced from statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A) that notices issued by the AO were dully served on the assessee. The assessee has scanty respect for statutory notices served upon him by the AO and the CIT(A). In our considered view it is a fit case for levy of cost for non compliance of statutory notices issued by lower authorities. Considering the fact that appeal of the assessee has not been decided on merits and assessment has been made in ex-parte proceedings, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee. The cost shall be paid in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income
Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Upon payment of cost, the AO shall make assessment for AY 2017-18
de-novo.

3
4. The Assessing Officer before making re-assessment shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
5. The assessee upon service of notice(s) by the AO shall respond to the same, without fail.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to cost as aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 14th day of January,
2025. (M. BALAGANESH)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 14/01/2025

NV/-
ᮧि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.