AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM:
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Delhi [“Learned CIT(A)”, for short] dated 16.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal for adjudication:
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be quashed.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the impugned order without providing proper and adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,13,53,410/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the facts on record.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee had deposited only Rs. 6,65,000/- in cash during the demonetization period and total cash deposit of Rs. 8,13,000/- during the Financial Year 2016-2017, and therefore the addition sustained is grossly excessive and without basis.
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 1,13,53,410/- without conducting proper verification and without considering the explanations and documentary evidences submitted by the Assessee.
6.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Assessee had duly submitted necessary explanations and deposit details before the Assessing Officer, which have been arbitrarily ignored without assigning any valid reason.
7.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made under section 69A without establishing that the impugned amount actually represented unexplained money belonging to the Assessee.
8.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the tax liability computed under section 115BBE of the Act, which has been wrongly invoked and is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
9.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act, which is unjustified, illegal and bad in law.
10.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section.272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is arbitrary, excessive and without any valid basis.
11.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
At the very outset, it is pointed out that the delay in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal by 16 days and for this purpose, the Learned AR submitted that delay in filing the appeal unintentional but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant as reasons were regarding medical condition of wife bedridden for one year, negligence of earlier professional, lack of technical knowledge. We, for ensuring the cause of justice, condone the same as it is established law that court must be considerably liberal while deciding the delay and approach should be adopted for disposal on its merit alone.
At the very outset, the Learned AR submitted that the appellant furnished the bank certificate, audited books of account and all relevant documentary evidence but not appreciated while making the impugned addition and made addition in question on incorrect facts and without proper inquiry. We find that the Learned AO passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act by stating that there was no compliance of notices by appellant despite service. We also noticed that the order passed by both the lower authorities are ex parte. However,the Learned DR relied on the order of both the lower authorities.
In totality of circumstances, we find that the issues in this case have not been discussed on merit and requires verification of facts, Therefore, keeping in view, the element of natural justice with the Appellant, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of the Learned AO, with the direction to pass an order de novo in accordance with law after giving adequate and meaningful opportunities to the appellant of being heard. The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the department for completion of proceedings before authorities below.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.