ASHWANI KUMAR,SONIPAT vs. INCCOME TAX OFFICER, SONIPAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to contest the issues on merits and restored the matters to the NFAC/CIT(A) for a fresh decision after issuing a new notice.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged three orders before the NFAC/CIT(A), including an assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, a penalty under Section 271F, and a penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The issues arose from cash deposits in the bank account, with the assessee claiming funds from buffalo sales and agricultural land sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the issues on merits due to procedural issues or lack of adequate hearing before the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.11.2024 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.CIT(A), Rohtak/10662/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-1, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
None has appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. Though notices have been issued and on the last date of hearing the ld. AR has also put in appearance. The ld. DR was heard.
On going through the impugned orders, we find that the assessee had challenged three orders before the ld.CIT(A). The first one was assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act; the second under section 271F of the Act order; and the third was the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. We find that NFAC has decided the three appeals together. However, the assessee had failed to respond to the notices issued by the NFAC and the NFAC, considering the submissions which were filed, proceeded to decide the issue. The issue primarily was arising out of cash deposits and credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee. However, the submissions made indicated that the assessee was engaged in selling and purchase of buffaloes and has arranged money from his family members and also from sale of agricultural land. However, in the absence of documentary evidences, these assertions were not accepted.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026