Case where notice sent by the Assessing Officer is not received by the Appellant

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.4182/Del/2019
Assessment Year : 2010-11

Sher Singh,
C/o-Ved Bhanu Arya, Adv.,
H.No.7, Friends Colony,
Jharsa Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122001.
PAN-BWDPS8994R
APPELLANT 

vs 

ITO,
Ward-4(2),
Gurgaon
RESPONDENT

Appellant by Sh. Ved Bhanu Arya, Adv.
Respondent by Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 19.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2021

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 26.02.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. "That the impugned Order of CIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-4(2), Gurugram, thereby creating a demand ofRs.18,86,120/- on account of tax and interest due thereon Vis 144 r.w. Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, unfair and against the principles of natural justice.

2. That the Best Judgment Assessment Order of the ITO Ward - 4(2), Gurugram creating the demand of Rs.18,86,120/- is grossly unjustified since the notices purported to have been sent by the Assessing Officer were never received by the Appellant, thereby making the contention of the Assessing Officer that the  Appellant was "deliberately avoiding the Assessment proceedings" unfounded.

3. That the upholding of the Order of the Assessing Officer by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-l, Gurugram, is grossly unjustified and against the principles of natural justice, since the same is also based on the belief "that the Assessee is not interested in pursuing theAppeal". In the instant case, the notices claimed to have been sent by the Department intimating the Appellant about the date of hearing of the Appeal were never received by the Appellant, thereby rendering the belief of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram incorrect. It is pertinent to note that if the Appellant was "not interested in pursuing the Appeal", then he would not have filed the Appeal in first place.

4. That the Assessing Officer grossly erred in considering the Cash deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- by the Appellant into his Bank Account No. 2041101004797 with Canara Bank, Haily Mandi, Gurugram, as unexplained credit Vis 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since the amount of Cash deposited by the Appellant into his Bank Account comprised primarily of Cash received by the Appellant by way of advance against Agreements for sale of immovable property owned and possessed by him. The summary of the Cash deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- by the Appellant into his said Bank Account is as follows: 

To know more in details find the attachment file