Sh. Anuj Mahajan vs Income Tax Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 15.02.2016 passed in case No. 55/14-15, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. He had also not put in appearance on the last twin hearings i.e. on 26^th November, 2025 and 22^nd January, 2026 as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee.

We further notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeks to quash the Assessing Officer’s section 144 assessment framed on 13.01.2014 for want of proper issuance and service of section 143(2) notice. A perusal of the case records indicates that the assessee has been raising this issue all along before the tribunal wherein the earlier learned benches have extensively dealt with the same which also includes the necessary report coming from the field authorities. Ms. Hansra further takes us to tribunal’s notings dated 03.02.2025 and 09.10.2025 wherein no rebuttal came from the taxpayer’s side. We thus reject the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground in very terms.

Next comes the sole substantive issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s cash deposits/credits amounting to Rs.66,55,400/- as unexplained; in assessment order and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. We note from a perusal of the case records that the learned Assessing Officer had framed section 144 best judgment assessment in the assessee’s case. Coming to the assessee’s lower appeal, we note that he chose to file his additional evidence application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (page 1 to 3 in the paper-book) which have been directed to be verified at the Assessing Officer’s level than getting remand report from the latter’s end. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee alleges in his fourth substantive ground that the CIT(A) does not have such a “set aside” jurisdiction w.e.f. 01.06.2001 as per the Finance Act, 2001 omitting the earlier statutory expression. This clinching legal argument has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned CIT(A) to examine the above issue himself after getting the necessary remand report from the Assessing Officer as per law subject to a rider that the assessee shall himself prove his entire explanation and evidence; at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Order accordingly.

All other remaining issues between the parties are kept open at this stge.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.