Case Law Details
Vinod Kumar Garg Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi addressed the appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Garg concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The case arose from an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], upholding the assessment under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment included additions of ₹7.42 lakh for alleged unexplained property investments and ₹44.5 lakh for unexplained cash deposits. The appellant argued that the assessment and reassessment proceedings were procedurally flawed, illegal, and against the principles of natural justice. He further attributed the delay in filing the appeal to his advanced age.
The ITAT acknowledged the procedural lapses and condoned the 250-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the appellant’s old age and lack of access to online platforms. It was argued that the appellant’s case was not effectively presented before the lower authorities due to counsel’s mistake and the appellant’s limited resources. Considering these factors and in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh evaluation. The AO has been directed to provide the appellant with an adequate opportunity to present his case. The decision underscores the Tribunal’s emphasis on ensuring procedural fairness and justice in tax proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.10.2023, relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-
1. That the order passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 18.10.2023, dismissing the appeal of. the assessee ex-parte and thereby upholding the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is erroneous, bad in law, and against the principles of natural justice.
2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the impugned assessment order, which was passed ex-parte, without considering that it was illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and therefore deserved to be quashed.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in sustaining the reassessment proceedings without appreciating that these proceedings were illegal, bad in and beyond jurisdiction, as they did not meet the requirements specified under sections 147 to 151 of the Act for a valid reopening of the assessment.
4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition made in the assessment order of Rs. 7,42,161/- on account of alleged . unexplained investment in property.
5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition made in the assessment order of Rs.44,50,000/-being cash deposited in the Canara bank account, treated as unexplained & undisclosed income of the
2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 250 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the old age of the assessee, hence, it is prayed that delay in dispute may kindly be condoned. Upon hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is condoned.
3. In this case, assessment order was framed u/s. 144 of the Act wherein, addition of Rs. 51,92,161/- on account of unexplained investment in cash Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.
4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that before the AO the assessee could not be presented because of the mistake of the counsel and before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee being a very old person could not access online data. He pleaded that assessee has not properly canvassed his case before the lower authorities, hence, he prayed that an opportunity may be given to assessee to canvass his case before the AO by sending back the issues in dispute to the AO for deciding the same afresh. Ld. DR did not object the aforesaid proposition.
5.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO. The AO shall pass the order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19/11/2024.
Author Bio
