JAI PRAKASH SAINI,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the assessment order passed and assertions made by learned assessing officer are arbitrary unwarranted and contrary to the letter and spirit of section 147 of the act. 2. That the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the entire amount received for transfer Immovable property of Rs. 47,71,95,000/-cannot be the income amount. 3. That the Ld. AO has taxed Rs. 27,42,70,900/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B in respect of purchase of immovable property from M/s Summit Apartments Private Limited that was sold during the year under consideration, without considering the F fact the amount for purchasing property was received as advance from IOCL Officers Welfare Society on account of sale of property. 4. That the Ld. AO has taxed Rs 17,04,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69B in respect of cash deposited in saving bank without considering the fact that entire credit cannot be income of assessee and the same was also a part of advance received as mentioned supra. 5. That the Ld. AO has passed order under section 147 dated 29.03.2022 on account of non-reply of notice without considering the fact that the assessee was in judicial custody during the period of assessment ongoing on appellant. 6. That the Ld. AO has made arbitrary additions to the assessed income without applying logic . 7. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by adding Rs.75,31,80,432/- as income from other sources and further by imposing penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the act (regarding which the Ld. CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal on the grounds that the appellant did not file any reply and evidences in response to the notices, therefore Ld. CIT(A) does not provide any relief and upheld the said addition made in the impugned assessment), which the appellant is appealing against, as the reason for non-filing any response was that the appellant was still untraceable / not physically available during the period of notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). 8. That without prejudice in any view of the matter, said additions are unwarranted. 9. The lordship is here by requested to kindly stay the demand till the disposal of appeal, as the same demand would give a huge dent the entire financial system of the appellant.”

Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee before lower authorities. It is also seen from record that the assessee was under jail and it is not possible for him to appear before the lower authorities. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the issue back to the file of AO with the directions to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to file all the details as called for. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.