AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated 19.06.2026 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 19.12.2022 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is in business of providing Cheque Clearing Pickup services from the Branch to the Regional processing Centre of the Respective Bank. The assessee filed its return of income on 14.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 6,46,790/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine issue of ‘Large payments made under section 194 C to persons who have not filed return of income’. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.06.2022. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25.07.2022, 10.08.2022, 06.10.2022, 27.10.2022, 17.11.2022 were issued. Show cause notice dated 30.11.2022, additional show cause notice dated 07.11.2022, letter dated 14.12.2022 were issued. The assessee made part compliance. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 19.12.2022 made additions of Rs. 59,55,438/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 6,18,070/- for section 36(1)(va) of the act.
Against order dated 19.12.2022 of ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed in limine as delay of 23 days in filing appeal, was not condoned.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in upholding the order passed by the learned AO under Section 144 r.w.s144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made without conducting any independent enquiry, merely on the basis of the alleged non-compliance with the notice issued under section 133(6).
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition based merely on assumptions and presumptions, without any material evidence establishing that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was non-genuine.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned appellate order without affording the Appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.59,55,438/- despite the fact that the learned Assessing Officer neither invoked the provisions of section 145 nor rejected the books of account before disallowing the expenditure, and therefore the addition is contrary to law and liable to be deleted.
6.That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.59,55,438/- made under section 69C of the Act by treating the contract expenditure incurred in favour of M/s Balaji Trading Company as unexplained expenditure.
7.That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,18,070/- under section 36(1) (va) of the Act.
8.That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.59,55,438/- and subjecting it to tax under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
9.That the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 272A(1)(d), 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
10.That the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in levying interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
11.That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
12.That the appellant leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal in limine by not condoning delay of 23 days in filing appeal. The delay was due to lack of communication between the assessee and his counsel residing in Delhi. Ld. AO had made addition regarding one party whose particulars could not be uploaded due to scarcity of space in the Portal. So, the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO.
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19.06.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing appeal because lack of communication between the assessee and his counsel. Ld. AO had made addition regarding one party whose particulars could not be submitted due to inadequate space. Prayer for restoration of matter to the file of ld. AO has been made.
In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, impugned orders dated 19.06.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) and 19.12.2022 of Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.