Case Number: ITA 1579/DEL/2021
Appellant: Ravinder Kumar, Haryana
Respondent: ITO Ward 3(5), Gurugram, Haryana
Assessment Year: 2015-2016
Case Filed On: 2021-10-29
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-02-23
Pronounced On: 2022-02-23
The case of Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Gurugram, revolves around an appeal filed by the assessee, Ravinder Kumar, against the ex-parte disposal of his appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The primary issue in the case is the addition of an unexplained increase in capital by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2015-16.
Ravinder Kumar, a resident individual, filed his return of income on January 25, 2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 12,06,590. However, during the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs. 2,75,52,390, resulting in the determination of total income at Rs. 2,87,58,980. The addition was made on the grounds that there was an unexplained increase in capital of Rs. 2,75,52,390 against the reported income of Rs. 12,06,590.
Ravinder Kumar appealed against the assessment order, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Ravinder Kumar brought the case to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The ITAT, comprising Judicial Member Shri Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, reviewed the case. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have the opportunity to explain the increase in capital during the assessment proceedings. Considering the nature of the disputed addition, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de-novo adjudication, ensuring that the assessee is provided a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate in finalizing the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) with timely appearance and proper representation.
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal’s order emphasized the need for a fair hearing and the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal’s decision was pronounced in the open court on February 23, 2022.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1579/Del/2021
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Sh. Ravinder Kumar, C-75, M2K Country, Sector-05, Dharuhera, Dist.-Rewari Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon PAN :AOJPR5468L (Appellant) (Respondent)
ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 24.09.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, for the assessment year 2015-16.
We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee is against ex-parte disposal of assessee’s appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).
As could be seen from the facts on record, assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income on 25.01.2016 declaring total income of Rs.12,06,590/-. While completing the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.2,75,52,390/- resulting in determination of total income at Rs.2,87,58,980/-. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, by the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of assessee’s appeal ex-parte confirming the addition made.
Having considered rival submissions, we find that the disputed addition was made by the Assessing Officer simply for the reasons that against the income reported of Rs.12,06,590/- there is an increase in capital of Rs.2,75,52,390/-. Since, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act to the best of judgment, the Assessing Officer treated the increase in capital as unexplained and added back to the income of the assessee. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal has merely confirmed the addition.
Considering the nature of the disputed addition and the fact that, for whatever may be the reason, the assessee could not avail the opportunity to explain the increase in capital balance, we are inclined to restore the issue back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de-novo adjudication after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate in finalization of the proceeding before learned Commissioner (Appeals) with timely appearance and proper representation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23rd February, 2022.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. 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