ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

Since these five appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum may differ.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred as 'the Act') by assessing a total income of Rs.70,19,75,099/- in complete ignorance of the facts on record and also in complete violation law and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same even without granting an opportunity of being heard despite seeking adjournment. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred while initiating re-assessment proceeding in the present case in complete violation of section 148A(a), even without examining the bank accounts of the Assessee herein, on mere surmises and conjectures and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred while initiating reassessment which was solely initiated based on information uploaded on the Insight Portal alleging the assessee herein as beneficiary of Rs.70.18 crore from M/s AMR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., etc. for five different assessment years within verification of quantum and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same.

That the Ld. AO has erred while not providing the reasons recorded for reopening before issuing the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 pursuant to the order passed under section 148A(d) of the IT Act on 27.07.2022, violating the principles of Natural justice and fair play and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred while passing an order under section 148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner, relying solely on the third-party information wherein the Ld. AO has failed to independently verify or corroborate the alleged receipt of Rs.70.18 crore, thus violating the legal requirement that reasons for reassessment must be based on credible and substantive material and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 7. That the Ld. AO has erred while initiating reassessment as the same is time barred under section 149 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 8. That the Ld. AO has erred while making addition of ₹70.18 Crore as unexplained receipt invoking section 69A of the Act for each of the five assessment years without even appreciating the actual receipt in the bank accounts of the Assessee and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same.

That the Ld. AO has erred while initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, who is having "Income from House Property", and "Income from other sources" has filed its return of income with total income of Rs. 1,75,099/-, the assessment of which was completed u/s 147 read with section 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] vide order dated 28.05.2023 making total additions of Rs. 70,18,00,000/- u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 thereby creating a demand of Rs. 48,33,13,986/-. 5. The proceedings u/s 147 of the I. T. Act 1961 were initiated in the instant case on the basis of information uploaded on Insight portal that the assessee had received Rs. 70.18 crore from M/s AMR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s AMR Infrasolution Pvt. Ltd., and other entities during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the A.Y under consideration. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139 on 30.01.2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,75,099/-

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has failed to provide corroborated evidence regarding the receipt of Rs.70.18 Crore by the assessee from the company namely AMR infrastructure India Private Limited, M/s AMR Infra-solution Pvt. Ltd. and other entities during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14 which has been treated as income and has also failed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case in this regard. Also, the addition to the income made by Assessing Officer is arbitrary and is without proper basis. Thus, aggrieved the assessee in in appeal before us. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that assessment has been framed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. We find that the assessee has not filed his submissions before the CIT(A) which led to CIT(A) confirming the additions. 9. In such a factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the assessee has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after affording

We have passed a separate order in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 hereinbove. As the facts and circumstances of the other appeals for four A.Ys are admittedly mutatis mutandis similar to those of the immediately preceding year, we set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues in the light of our order given hereinabove for such preceding year. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such proceedings.

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 2160, 2161, 2162, 2163 and 2164/DEL/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.