AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)-26, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 25.11.2025 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as “Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by DCIT, Central Circle -15, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-26 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is illegal, bad in law and unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and in violation of principles of natural justice, without adjudicating the issues on merits, merely on the ground of alleged non-appearance, despite the issues being purely legal and arising from the assessment record itself.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing a cryptic, summary and nonspeaking order, without dealing with each ground of appeal separately and without recording points for determination, decision thereon and reasons thereof, in clear violation of section 250(6) of the Act.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in recording an incorrect and perverse finding that no response was filed by the assessee, despite the fact that the assessee had duly filed a complete paper-book dated 27.05.2025 containing all relevant documents and submissions which were already on record before the Ld. Assessing Officer, thereby rendering the impugned order vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence and violation of principles of natural justice.
5.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, which is bad both on facts and in law.
6.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not adjudicating the ground relating to gross violation of principles of natural justice at the assessment stage, wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer raised the query regarding disallowance of deduction under section 10AA for the first time at the fag end of proceedings on 16.12.2023 and thereafter passed the assessment order without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.
7.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not adjudicating the jurisdictional ground raised vide application dated 27.11.2024 relating to invalid issuance of notice dated 27.06.2022 under section 143(2) of the Act by a non-jurisdictional officer, rendering the entire assessment proceedings void ab initio.
8.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi, whereas the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the assessee was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi, and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction itself was invalid in law.
9.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer had incorrectly assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹67,66,22,144/- as against the returned income of ₹64,71,32,620/-.
10.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reduction of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 10AA of the Act amounting to ₹2,91,89,524/-, without examining the nature of each item of income and without appreciating the factual and legal submissions on record.
9.1That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reduction of profits of the eligible undertaking by ₹6,21,40,993/- for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10AA of the Act.
9.2That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that interest income on fixed deposits, liquidated damages and export incentives had a direct nexus with the business of the eligible SEZ undertaking and were integral to the business activities thereof, and therefore eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act.
9.3That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the disallowance without considering the documentary evidences already available on record, including unit-wise balance sheets, computation of income and Form 56F, and without calling for any remand report or verification.
10.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in disposing of the appeal mechanically and in a predetermined manner, merely reproducing the findings of the Assessing Officer, without independent application of mind.
11.That the impugned order is otherwise erroneous, perverse and contrary to law and facts on record.
12.That the grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to each other.
13.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 u/s 139 of the Act on 14.03.2022 declaring income of Rs. 64,74,32,620/-. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued & served on 27.06.2022 and other notices of the Act were also issued to the assessee from time to time in which response the assessee submitted its reply/documents. Thereafter, assessment was completed by the assessing officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 67,66,22,144/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the assessment order. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.
At the outset, the ld counsel of the assessee stated that the CIT(A) without examining the entire conspectus of the case properly and without following the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, passed the order.
Per contra the ld DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the CIT(A) has passed an order without following the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We are therefore of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and balance of convenience, the issues should be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining the issues and evidences afresh. We therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to give reasonable opportunities to the assessee and examine and adjudicate on the impugned issues giving reason for his decision. The assessee is also directed to furnish all documents/evidence as and when required by the ld. CIT(A) for examination. Needless to add that in the event the assessee fails to avail the three effective opportunities provided, the CIT(A) would be free to take adverse view, if any. In view of the same, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 243/DEL/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.