Case Number: ITA 5538/DEL/2019
Appellant: Lhundub Dorji Lama, Himachal Pradesh
Respondent: ITO Ward-36(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Result: Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes
Case Filed on: 2019-06-25
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-01-09
Pronounced on: 2023-01-09
The appeal in this case was filed by Lhundub Dorji Lama, residing in Himachal Pradesh, against the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-36(1), New Delhi. The case pertained to the assessment year 2008-09 and was initially filed on 25th June 2019. The dispute arose due to the addition of Rs. 27,04,931/- as unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Lhundub Dorji Lama filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, dated 10th April 2019. The primary reason for the appeal was to contest the addition of Rs. 27,04,931/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The case was heard before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench “SMC”) in New Delhi on 9th January 2023. The bench comprised Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member. The appellant was not represented by anyone, while the Revenue was represented by Shri S.L. Anuragi, Senior Departmental Representative (DR).
The appellant did not file a return for the assessment year 2008-09. Based on the AIR information, the case was selected for scrutiny due to the substantial cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank accounts during the financial year 2007-08, relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. The AO completed the assessment under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, adding Rs. 27,04,931/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The appellant contested this addition before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO’s decision. Consequently, the appellant approached the Tribunal.
The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, arguing that the addition was unjustified and the proceedings under Section 148 were invalid due to improper service of notice and lack of valid jurisdiction. The appellant also contended that Section 68 could not be applied to bank deposits and that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were against the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that there was no effective representation on behalf of the appellant during the assessment stage. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present his case.
The appeal of Lhundub Dorji Lama vs. ITO Ward-36(1), New Delhi, was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to reassess the case after giving the appellant an adequate opportunity to substantiate his claims. This outcome emphasizes the importance of providing taxpayers with a fair chance to present their case during assessment proceedings.
The order was pronounced by Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, on 9th January 2023.
Members Present:
Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member
Document Reference:
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform