KARAN SINGH TYAGI,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(2)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
Facts
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, which upheld a reassessment involving an addition of Rs. 44,12,000/- under Section 69A for cash deposited from the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The assessee also contended that the reassessment jurisdiction was illegal, notice under Section 148 was not served, and principles of natural justice were violated. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without going into merits, stating the assessee failed to file submissions.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on its merits. Consequently, to ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Validity of reassessment proceedings and jurisdiction under Section 147/144; non-service of notice under Section 148; legality of addition under Section 69A for sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land; violation of natural justice; and dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A.No.2523/Del/2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2523/Del/2023 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karan Singh Tyagi ITO, C/o C.S. Anand, Advocate, Vs. Ward 5(2)(1), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10 L.S.C., Gautam Budh Nagar, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.AEQPTA708Q अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent
Assessee by Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Amanpreet Kaur Walia, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 07.11.2023 31.01.2024 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi dated 13.07.2023 for the AY 2012-13. Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is illegal. 2. That the re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 (stated to have been issued on 22.03.2019) was not served on the assessee.
I.T.A.No.2523/Del/2023
That the re-assessment order dt.05.12.2019 passed u/s 144/147 is liable to be annulled because the statutory notices were not served on the assessee. 4. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the cash deposited in the bank account (which represented the sale proceeds of lands forming part of ancestral agricultural lands) ought not to have been treated as 'unexplained money in terms of section 69A'. 5. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, addition of Rs.44,12,000/- u/s 69A ought not to have been made/sustained. 6. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, addition of Rs.44,12,000/- ought not to have been made/sustained in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity because the land which was sold during the year and whose sale proceeds were deposited in the bank account, was ancestral. 7. That the assessment order passed by the lower authorities are liable to be annulled because the principles of natural justice were violated. 8. That the appeal order dt.13.07.2023 passed u/s 250 is liable to be cancelled because after specifically seeking clarification from the assessee regarding the apparent delay in filing the appeal (vide Annexure to notice dt.16.06.2023 u/s 250, fixing compliance for 30.06.2023) and thereafter receiving the reply from the assessee vide letter uploaded on 29.06.2023, the learned officer of NFAC had closed the appellate proceeding and ultimately passed the Order dt.13.07.2023, dismissing the appeal while stating that the assessee had not filed any submissions alongwith supporting documentary evidences. Without Prejudice 9. That in any case, the addition of Rs.44,12,000/- made/sustained u/s 69A is highly excessive.”
I.T.A.No.2523/Del/2023
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that
the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without giving
any finding on merits. Ld. Counsel submits that the appeal has
been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) observing that the assessee did not
file any submissions and supporting the documentary evidences in
support of the grounds filed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submits that after seeking clarification from the assessee regarding
the delay in filing of the appeal and for the compliance on
30.06.2023 the assessee uploaded letter on 29.06.2023 on
condonation of delay and thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) close the NFAC
proceedings and finally passed the order on 30.07.2023. The Ld.
Counsel for the assessee submits that since the appeal of the
assessee was not decided on merits. The appeal may be restored to
the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.
Ld. DR has no serious objection.
On hearing the rival contentions and perused the order of the
Ld.CIT(A), we observed that the Ld.CIT(A) did not go into merits of
the grounds raised by the assessee, thus, in the interest of justice,
we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh
adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3
I.T.A.No.2523/Del/2023
Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical
purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2024
Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31/01/2024 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi
