AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 23.06.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 06.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
Additions made without appreciating facts of the case:
1)That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO') and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)) erred in making the addition of Rs. 2,56,51,400 without appreciating the facts of the case and without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the Assessee's full cooperation during the assessment proceedings.
2)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 29,54,500 on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted.
3)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,12,27,000 on account of unsecured loans without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted.
4)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,13,72,000 on account of share premium without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the addition may please be deleted.
5)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 97,902 on account of provision against assets, without appreciating that the Assessee is a lease finance company and provisioning against assets is a routine business activity. As such addition Rs. 97,902 may please be deleted.
6)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in passing the impugned rectification order under section 154 of the Act, beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act.As per section 154(7) of the Act, no rectification order can be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of financial year in which the original order was passed. The rectification order dated August 22, 2024 has been passed beyond the limitation period and is therefore bad in law, and liable to be quashed.
7)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the additional evidence filled by the Assessee during appellate proceedings, despite such evidence being crucial for a just and fair adjudication of the appeal.
Principal of Natural Justice:
8)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated06.12.2019 (served on 09.12.2019) prematurely, even though the limitation date for completion of assessment was 31.12.2019, and without duly considering the detailed responses filed by the Assessee on multiple occasions (viz. 23.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 25.11.2019, 29.11.2019, 04.12.2019 and 05.12.2019), thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
9)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the additional evidence filled by the Assessee during appellate proceedings, despite such evidence being crucial for a just and fair adjudication of the appeal.
At the outset, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee does not deserves any relief since it has not been complying statutory notices issued by lower authorities. Reference was invited to para-7 of the assessment order where the AO recorded assessee’s non-compliance. It was submitted that the assessee’s misconduct of non-compliance continued before the Ld. CIT(A) as well. Reference was invited to pages 25 to 27 of the appellate order indicating non-compliance during appellate proceedings. It was accordingly requested that the appeal be dismissed.
The ld. Counsel defended the appellant assessee by raising the issue of lack of proper opportunity and that the assessment order was passed without issuance of show-cause notice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had rejected its petition of filing of additional evidences. The ld. Counsel however submitted that due compliance would now be made and that a last opportunity be given to present the evidences and defend its case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact on record that the assessee has not been able to present his case before the lower authorities. We are conscious of the fact that the no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Further, considering the non-compliance of the appellant assessee before lower authorities, this order is subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant shall file a copy of the same before the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.