AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’] arising from the assessment order passed on 10.12.2024 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the NFAC, for the Assessment Year 2020-21
Assessee filed the following grounds of appeal as under:
1.“The Ld Authorities below erred in law and facts of case in treating bank credits as income and calculating profit thereon @10% of Rs.63,87,128/- whereas as per audited accounts, the appellant has declared the turnover at Rs.4,66,97,856/-.
2.The Ld Authorities below erred in law and facts of case in making addition of Rs.9,372/- received from TATA power Delhi distribution as income under other sources when the same is accounted in Audited accounts of appellant.
3.That the order passed by Ld Authorities is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice.
4.That the appellant reserves the right of add / delete / modify the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that in this case assessment proceedings were completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order observed that notice under Sections 148, 148A, 142(1), and 144, providing multiple opportunities for the assessee to furnish details and documents, was issued. The assessee sought adjournments citing prolonged illness of the company president, Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, but failed to submit complete details despite adequate opportunities. Consequently, the AO completed assessment under Section 144 read with Sections 147 and 144B, making the following additions: income from business of Rs.63,87,128/- (10% of total bank credits of Rs. 6,38,71,285/-) and income from other sources of Rs.9,732/-. The AO reasoned that bank credits and interest income not supported by filing of return could be treated as income for the purposes of assessment, following verification through third-party information including bank statements and confirmations from business parties.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions.
Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has made an ex-parte assessment wherein he has added 10% of gross profit of Rs.63,87,128/- whereas as per the audited account, the assessee had declared a turnover of Rs.4,66,97,856/-. It is argued that additional evidence was placed before the CIT(A) but he did not call for remand report from the ld AO under Rule 46A and rejected the assessee’s explanation and prayed for restoration of appeal before the AO.
Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A)/NFAC.
We have heard both the parties and have perused the relevant material on record. At the very outset, we find that the AO has made an ex-parte order. We also find that the assessee submitted additional documents before the CIT(A) who did not put it for verification under Rule 46A. In such facts and circumstances, the appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to the file of the Learned AO for denovo consideration of the matter. The AO is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee to present its materials/evidences. We also make it clear that in the event, the assessee does not cooperate with the AO, the said authority would be at liberty to proceed with the matter and finalize the same strictly in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1679/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.