DILIP KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 100/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity before the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

During demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs. 20,00,000/- cash but failed to file an Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2017-18 despite notices. The AO added the amount under Section 69A as unexplained money, and the CIT(A) upheld this addition, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 69A and in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity or considering merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gaba, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.03.2024Pronounced: 19.03.2024

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.11.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Order passed u/s 250 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi , is without granting proper opportunity to the appellant therefore is in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the is order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi without considering merits on matters raised in grounds of appeal therefore be set aside

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC upholding assessment of income assessed by Ld. A.O at Rs 20,00,000/-/- as against income returned at Rs NIL/-

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirming additions of Rs. 20,00,000/- out of cash deposits in bank as undisclosed income under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirming additions of Rs. 20,00,000/- cash recorded in the books of accounts and deposits in bank as undisclosed income under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961

7.

That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other

8. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO received information that during demonetization period the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,00,000/- in his bank account but had not filed return for A.Y. 2017-18. The AO issued statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), requiring the assessee to file return for A.Y. 2017-18, however, the same remained uncomplied with. Therefore, AO proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 and vide order dated 04.12.2019 by making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. The assessment was completed accordingly. Against this the assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who affirmed the action of the AO.

Aggrieved against this now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

It is noticed from the record that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities. The learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit and dismissed the same for want of prosecution. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, in order to subserve the interest of natural justice and to provide an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case, I set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of learned

AO for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 19th March, 2024.

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 →