Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on cash deposits and withdrawals, and commission received. The assessee failed to respond to notices, and the assessment was completed ex-parte. The assessee claims not to have been aware of the notices on the ITBA portal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given an adequate opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice. For the ends of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice before the assessment was completed ex-parte.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 144, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vivekanand, Vs ITO, Village Mamura, Ward-3(4), Gali No.03, Sector 66, Noida. Noida. PAN: ATCPV1528K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raghuraj Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.02.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10274820 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 24.02.2023 passed u/s 147 R.W.S. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-3(4), Noida (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised a ground that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. On going through the records, we find that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of cash deposits of Rs.90,000/- and cash withdrawals of Rs.1,97,09,500/- from Allahabad Bank and having received commission on brokerage of Rs.1,61,480/- from M/s Vakrangee Limited. However, the assessee failed to respond to the notices and assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and as the assessee approached the ld.CIT(A), the appeal was also dismissed in the absence of any submissions from the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the assessee is an agent and on account of his principle he used to receive cash which was deposited or withdrawn. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was not aware of the notices being received on ITBA portal and for that reason, could not defend the case.