AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or 'the ld. FAA' for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 147 /143(3) r.w.s u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -
| ITA No. & AY | Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order | Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA | AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order |
| 3288/D/26 2019-20 | CIT(A)-29 New Delhi | Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi-29, 10885/2018-19 Dated 08.01.2026 | DCIT, CC-25 New Delhi 30.03.2024 |
| 3289/D/26 2020-21 | CIT(A)-29 New Delhi | Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi-29, 10694/2019-20 Dated 08.01.2026 | DCIT, CC-25 New Delhi 30.03.2024 |
| 3290/D/26 2022-23 | CIT(A)-29 New Delhi | Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi-29, 10037/2021-22 Dated 08.01.2026 | DCIT, CC-25 New Delhi 30.03.2024 |
None appeared on behalf of the assesse at the time of hearing in spite of the case being called repeatedly and notices have been issued earlier including by way of RPAD. No further opportunity is justified. After considering the contention of ld. DR and on perusal of the facts coming from the record we find that the assessments have been completed by making addition on account of loans received by the assesse which are found to be non-genuine and accommodation entries. The impugned order of ld. CIT(A) shows that notices were issued on four occasions and assesse had failed to appear. However, in para 4 of the impugned order the ld. CIT(A) has not indicated as to what was the mode of service and it comes up that in Form 35 assessee had given email for communication but has also not specifically mentioned that the notice be served by email. Among other grounds on merits assesse also raised ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to the assesse by the ld. CIT(A). We find that ld. CIT(A) relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.N. Bhattacharjee (118 ITR 461) (SC) had proceeded to decide the appeal and primarily the observations are that as in the appellate proceedings assesse had failed to controvert and findings and additions made by the AO the same are sustained.
In the light of aforesaid we consider it appropriate case to restore the issue on merits as well as law to the files of ld. CIT(A), to decide afresh in light of aforesaid observation and giving adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeals of assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.