Deepanshu Bhargava vs Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Deepanshu Bhargava, the assessee, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.03.2024, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, including the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee also argued that the non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond their control. The assessee further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in confirming the reopening of the assessment proceedings without valid reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment. The assessee also argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in confirming the reassessment of income and in confirming the addition of undisclosed income and sale consideration without providing sufficient opportunity to furnish requisite explanations and documentary evidences.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment proceedings without valid reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment.
• 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment of income and in confirming the addition of undisclosed income and sale consideration without providing sufficient opportunity to furnish requisite explanations and documentary evidences.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Hansraj Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• Rajeev Jaiswal and Others v. Income Tax Officer-2(2)

  Lucknow bench

• Hindustan EPC Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

  Delhi bench

• Harish Sharma, Proprietor M/s Shekhar Textile Industries v. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• DEEPAK COMMUNICATION VS. ITO, WARD 60(6)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Dy. CIT Central Circle-2(3) vs. F A Construction