AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M.
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi for A.Y. 2013-14.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :-
1.That in facts and circumstances of this case the AO has erred in accepting not revised return of income filed as nil in response to the notice U/s 148.
2.That the notice issued U/s 148 dated 27.01.2021 and reassessment order passed by the AO dated 23.02.2022 are illegal, bad in law, time barred and jurisdiction. without
3.That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in issuing notice U/s 148 without invoking the proviso to section 147 of the act.
4.That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 2,04,50,000/- against the declared return of income of nil
5.That the AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making the addition of Rs.2,04,50,000/- under section 68 of the act as the land transaction was cancelled and money was subsequently refunded back along with compensation.
6.The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.
In this case the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 11.02.2022 and asked for certain explanation regarding queries of transaction of Rs.20450000/-. The case was fixed for hearing on 16.02.2022. On this day nobody attended nor any application for adjournment was submitted. Another and final show cause was issued on 18.02.2022 asking the assessee to make compliance at the earliest because the case was getting time barred and there was hardly any scope of giving another adjournment to the assessee. But again no reply was submitted by the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed before the AO. Accordingly, the AO passed the assessment order on the basis of material available on record that was primarily information received from ADIT, Investigation Unit-2 (4) New Delhi making addition of Rs.20450000/- u/s.60A of the IT Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO because no credible evidence against the addition of Rs.20450000/-was made by the AO was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in order to establish the creditworthiness of M/s. Fast Trading Co. which was alleged to be a bogus company.
During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed paper book and submissions on this issue and argued that lower authorities could not see things in proper prospective.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the authorities below and we find that the assessee could not file proper and adequate evidences before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A) to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, in order to give another fair chance to the assessee. The case is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to take a remand report from the AO on this issue within given time so that the case may be adjudicated at the earliest. The assessee is also is at liberty to file all relevant documents/ submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) as it feels proper and appropriate.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.