AJMER SINGH,ROPAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), ROPAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 241/CHD/2024 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम Ajmer Singh, The ITO, Village Solkhian, Ward 2 (2), Patredi Jattan, Ropar Ropar �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EVKPS3238D अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing )
�नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
241-Chd-2024 Ajmer Singh, Ropar 2 2. Grounds of appeal are as under:-
That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NPAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10127991 has erred in passing order u/s 250 dtd. 12.01.2024 as the same is in contravention of provisions of s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act”). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT{A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 35,50,000/- made by Ld, AO on account of alleged Unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Act. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE plus surcharge thereon on above addition made u/s 69 in Ground No. 3, even when if the said addition is accepted academically, the same could only have been taxed at normal rates. 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
241-Chd-2024 Ajmer Singh, Ropar 3 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.
Brief facts of the case, as per the assessment order are as under:-
The brief facts of this case as per the information received from the office of the Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Chandigarh, vide letter No. 1398 dated 17/09/2018 the assessee has made investment in purchase of property amounting to Rs. 35,50,000/- during the Financial Year 2015- 16 relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17. Further, on verification from the ITBA & E-filing portal, it was noticed that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 and also no assessment proceedings have been completed for the year under the consideration. As the assessee has not filed Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2016-17, the source of the above investment in purchase of property amounting to Rs. 35,50,000/- during the Financial Year 2015- 16 could not be verified and hence the same required further verification. Enquiry letter was issued to the assessee had not filed his return of
241-Chd-2024 Ajmer Singh, Ropar 4 income for the A.Y.2016-17 and also no assessment proceedings had been completed for the year under the consideration. As the assessee has not filed Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2016- 17, the source of the above investment in purchase of property amounting to Rs. 35,50,000/- during the Financial Year 2015-16 could not be verified and hence the same required further verification. Enquiry letter was issued by the office of the DIT (I&CI) but the assessee has not furnished any explanation regarding aforesaid transaction. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed ex-parte and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed the order without hearing the case of the Assessee. Therefore, the request was made by the Counsel of the Assessee that the matter may be remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
241-Chd-2024 Ajmer Singh, Ropar 5 5. The ld. DR had no objection to the request of the Counsel of the Assessee.
We have considered the request of the Counsel of the Assessee and his arguments for remanding the matter back to the file of the A.O. and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel of the Assessee as well as of ld. DR, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31.12.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ( SANJAY GARG ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY ) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.के.”
241-Chd-2024 Ajmer Singh, Ropar 6 आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
