Case Number: ITA 1522/DEL/2020
Appellant: Har Prashad Bhutani, Ghaziabad
Respondent: ITO WARD – 1(3), Ghaziabad
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Result: Reopening of Assessment Challenged
Case Filed On: 2020-08-31
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-10-12
Pronounced On: 2021-10-12
The case of Har Prashad Bhutani vs. ITO Ward-1(3) pertains to the challenge against the reopening of assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11. This appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi “SMC” Bench, chaired by Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member. The key issues revolved around the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent ex-parte order by the CIT(A), Ghaziabad.
Har Prashad Bhutani, the appellant, faced reassessment proceedings initiated based on AIR information indicating a cash deposit of Rs. 47 lakhs in his Savings Bank account during the financial year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued verification letters, which received no response, leading to the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the issuance of a notice under Section 148 dated March 29, 2017. The appellant did not respond to the notice, resulting in an ex-parte assessment under Section 144/147, where an addition of Rs. 47 lakhs was made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Har Prashad Bhutani raised several grounds of appeal, including:
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel, Shri Sushil Antal, Advocate, argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the appellant’s poor health. The appellant, a senior citizen aged 74, was suffering from various age-related medical conditions that required constant medication and bed rest, preventing timely filing of the appeal.
The respondent’s counsel, Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR, opposed the arguments, stating that the appellant had shown a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal and had also failed to respond during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, noting the appellant’s medical issues as a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s guidelines in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merit. The Tribunal also instructed the appellant to cooperate with the CIT(A) and substantiate his case without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law.
Order:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced: Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 12.10.2021.
Sd/-
(R.K. PANDA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 12th October, 2021
VBP/-
Copy to:
// By Order //
Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches : Delhi
Har Prashad Bhutani vs. ITO Ward-1(3): Challenge on Reopening Assessment for AY 2010-11
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