YASHPAL TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRIAssessment Year: 2012-13
PER RENU JAUHRI, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, NFAC), passed in Appeal No. CIT(Appeal) Ghaziabad/10576/2019-20 for A.Y. 2012-13, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), order dated 17.05.2024. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer (for short, ITO), Ward 2(2)(1) (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2 | P a g e
The grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: “(A) That, the cause of action arises when the appellant was made aware of the appellate order only when the demand was communicated to the appellant.
(B)
Erred in Law by LD, CIT(A) in Non-Consideration of Relevant Evidence Submitted Before the Ld. AO.
(a) It is submitted, That the learned Assessing Officer
(hereinafter referred as A0"). and subsequently the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as CIT(A). failed to properly appreciate and consider the relevant documents and explanations submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. In particular, the explanation regarding the cash deposit and cash withdrawal was not adequately addressed. The appellant had clearly submitted that the said deposit was made after a corresponding withdrawal of funds from the same account, thus establishing a direct nexus between withdrawal and redeposit. This critical piece of evidence was overlooked, leading to an erroneous conclusion and addition. (Order Attached).
(b) It is also submitted, that, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to look into the details, submissions and documents as submitted by the Appellant during the assessment, as the cashflow submitted by the appellant during assessment, is also mentioned in the order passed by the Ld. AO, which was clearly overlooked by the Ld. CIT(A) as the same order was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) without any proper reasons.
(Order by Ld. AO Attached)
(C)
3 | P a g e
(b) That despite the case being pending for over five years, the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to furnish submissions and supporting documents.
Furthermore, the appellant did not receive any official intimation or email regarding the issuance of notices or the date of hearing.
(D) Order Passed with Pre-Determined Mindset.
a) That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) appears to have been made with a predetermined mindset and without giving due consideration to the facts, documents, and submissions relevant to the case. The appellant was neither served with proper notice nor provided a fair opportunity to substantiate the claim with supporting documentation. The actions of the lower authorities are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and have resulted in miscarriage of justice.
(E) The appellant craves for leave. to add, amend, delete or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal. ”
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 388 days in response of which an affidavit for condonation has been filed explaining the reasons of delay as the delay attributed to the CA has been duly explained by him in the affidavit. After hearing both the parties, we hereby, condone the delay of 388 days being on account of bonafide reasons, as explained in the affidavit.
Brief facts of the case are that return for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 26.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,40,700/-. Subsequently, based on AIR information, received from Punjab National Bank regarding deposit of Rs. 15,30,000/- in cash in savings account by the assessee, the case was re-opened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 2,55,70,700/- after making the following additions: 4 | P a g e
(i)
Unexplained cash deposit :
Rs. 15,30,000/-
(ii)
Income from other sources:
Rs. 2,39,00,000/-
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Vide order dated 17.05.2024, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Ld. AR has requested for restoring the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proposition.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15-12-2025. (VIMAL KUMAR)
Accountant Member
Dated: 18.12.2025
Pooja Mittal