AJIT SINGH MALIK,HARYANA vs. ITO, PANIPAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee another opportunity to represent himself. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against additions made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A) was previously dismissed for non-attendance. After recalling the order, the Tribunal found that the examination of a key witness and the assessee's business status were not properly conducted.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO properly examined the business income from sale/purchase of building material and the transaction of sale of agriculture land, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 16.08.2016.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. The order of the assessing officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted the returned income.
2. The learned assessing officer is not justified in treating the business income from sale/purchase of building material by the appellant, which was filled under u/s 44(AF) of Income tax 1961, on the plea that a documentary evidences submitted was not sufficient for the above business income. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as per the said section, the assessee no way to required maintaining the books of accounts. So, he ought to have accepted the as sufficient evidences have been produced such as Cash Flow statement, Bank Pass Book of the assessee.
Ajit Singh Malik 3. The learned assessing officer is not justified in treating the amount received from sale of agriculture land. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he has failed to appreciate the prevailing circumstances in the said transaction.
4. The learned assessing officer is not justified in not affording another opportunity to the appellant to produce a affidavit from Mr Arjun Kumar. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought not have completed the assessment hastily.”
The assessment in this case has been completed on 13.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-1, Panipat making additions to the tune of Rs.27,83,800/-. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has affirmed the action of the AO vide order dated 16.08.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 16.09.2016. The appeal has been dismissed on 22.12.2016 owing to non-attendance of the assessee. The order has been recalled vide order dated 05.01.2018 and order of the ITAT has been passed on 12.03.2018. This order of the ITAT has been recalled vide order dated 28.02.2023. Subsequently, the hearing was held on 18.05.2023.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
On perusal of the Assessment Order, order of the ld. CIT(A) and statement of facts, it is found that the examination of Sh. Arjun Kumar who was the alleged purchaser and the fact of assessee being the business have not been undertaken on a judicious way. From the record, it is established that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to represent himself properly before the revenue authorities. Hence, the matter is remanded to the file
Ajit Singh Malik the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh de novo. The assessee shall comply promptly to the notices issued by the revenue from time to time and shall not misuse the opportunity given by the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/06/2023.
More judgments on Section 44AF
- Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), SuratITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
- Vinodkumar Ramubhai Patel, Valsad vs Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4, NavsariITA 332/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2026AY 2010-11
- Tej Pal Singh, Haridwar vs ITO, RoorkeeITA 915/DDN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, MumbaiITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
- Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), SuratITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
