IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 351/2013  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  .... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Sr. Standing 
 . 
 Counsel with Ms. Asmita Kumar, Advocate 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MADHVAN GANGADHAR BHANOO        ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through:  Nemo. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    19.08.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 1.  This appeal filed by the revenue which pertains to assessment year 
 2006-07 has to be dismissed as it raises purely factual disputes. 
 . 
 2.   The assessing officer had passed an ex parte order dt. 24.12.2008 
 under Section 144 recording that the respondent assessee had been served 
 by affixation.  Addition of Rs.1,27,27,118/- was made, treating the 
 entire investment mentioned in the Annual Information Report as 
 undisclosed income. 
 . 
 3.   The respondent assessee was subsequently informed about the 
 assessment and pending demand by the office of the appellant on telephone 
 at his Pune address.  Thereupon the respondent filed an appeal before the 
 CIT (Appeals) and challenged the ex parte proceedings and the order on 
 merits. 
 . 
 4.     The assessee-respondent was working as a Liaison Officer of a 
 foreign company and after his retirement at the age of 68 years, shifted 
 to Pune in September, 2007.  The respondent, as per the CIT (Appeals) and 
 the Tribunal had duly informed and had made an application in a 
 prescribed form for correction of address in the PAN data record on 
 20.9.2007.  Though factual finding is not disputed.  It is apparent that 
 the assessing officer has not verified or tried to locate and serve 
 notice under section 143(2) at the correct address.  He did not even get 
 in touch with the company where the respondent-assessee was earlier 
 working but after the demand was raised, attempts were made to locate him 
 and he was asked to pay up. 
 . 
 5.   In the said circumstances, CIT (Appeals) called for a remand report 
 in view of the factual matrix explained by the respondent assessee. The 
 respondent-assessee had set out and stated the sources of investment of 
 Rs.1,27,287,118/-.  In terms of Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 
 the First Appellate Authority could not have quashed the assessment order 
 and asked the assessing officer to make a fresh or denovo assessment.  In 
 the remand report, the assessing officer did not touch upon the merits or 
 contest the facts stated by the respondent-assessee on the source of 
 investment.  He insisted that the ex parte assessment was correct and 
 justified.   In view of the facts noted above, the ex parte proceedings 
 were not justified and the appellate authorities were justified in making 
 observations and finding against the assessing officer. 
 . 
 6.   On merits, the CIT (Appeals), had no option but to accept the 
 explanation and stand of the respondent-assessee, which was duly 
 supported by the documents.  The respondent-assessee had disclosed and 
 mentioned that he was filing returns declaring substantial taxable and 
 non-taxable income from the assessment years 2001-02 onwards. 
 Amounts/income declared have been mentioned by the First Appellate 
 Authority.  The respondent-assessee had also stated that the investments 
 were through bank accounts maintained by him in normal course and details 
 were furnished and not disputed by the assessing officer in the remand 
 report. 
 . 
 7.   Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal but again without 
 verification or mentioning result of any enquiry to show that the claim 
 of the respondent-assessee was incorrect and wrong. 
 . 
 8. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to issue notice in the 
 appeal and it is dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 AUGUST 19, 2013 
 . 
 sv 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ R-II-A-22 
 .