Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO, Ward 32 (5)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Raj Kumar Sharma, an individual, did not file the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs.5,80,000/-, credit card payments of Rs.7,80,000/-, and received Rs.16,46,613/- during the year. Consequently, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018. The assessee filed a belated return on 13.12.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,43,752/-. Despite multiple notices under section 142(1) and a show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, the assessee did not comply. The AO added undisclosed income and assessed the total income at Rs.34,55,085/-. The assessee appealed before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, who partly allowed the appeal. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee's representative claimed that the assessee did not receive statutory notices, hence could not file necessary details.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit before the Assessing Officer?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Dhairya Jyotish Dandwala vs The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• Aman Sharma vs ITO

• Smt. Raj Kumari vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer

• ITA No. 3164/del/2023 SRS Advertising & marketing Pvt. ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Gupta & Sons Vs. The Income Tax Officer (I/C), TDS Ward-1(2), Chennai