AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 20.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appeal has been dismissed against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18.
Brief facts as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,87,690/-. The assessme nt was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs.1,08,92,993/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.46 ,03,900/- on account of cash deposits, an addition of Rs.21,10,000/- on account of unsecured lo ans and an addition of Rs.33,91 ,403/- on account of alleged unverified purchases/estimated profit. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnishe d additional evidence, comprising month-w ise cash book/bank cash-flow summaries, confirmations, PAN and ITR acknowledgements of loan creditors and details of purchase partie s with PAN and addresses. The ld. C IT(A), after considering the r emand report and the submissions of the assessee, admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule s, 1962. However, while adjudicating the issues, the ld. CIT( A) ultimately co nfirmed the additions of Rs.46,03,900/-, Rs.21,10,000/- and Rs.33,91,403/-.
Aggrieved by the impug ned order, the assesse e is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1 . The Assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed by the Incom e-tax Office r, Wa rd-36(4 ), Del hi [i n s hort "Id. AO"] under s ecti on 143(3) of the Inc ome-tax Act [i n sho rt "t he Act"] and upheld by t he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Fac eles s Appeal Centre (NFAC ), Delhi [i n short "Ld. CIT(A )"] vide order dat ed-20/11/2025 are bad at law a nd on facts hence, the they are void ab i nitio and liable to be quas hed.
2.That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erre d in accepti ng t he assess ed inc ome of t he Appellant at Rs. 1,08,92,993/-, as agai nst the returned income of Rs. 7 ,87,690/-.
3.That on the fact s and i n law, the Ld. CIT (A ) has grossly erre d i n upholdi ng additi on t o the tune of Rs. 46,03,900/- u/s 68/69A r.w. s. 115BBE of the Act, ev en when t he same was already cr edited to the profi t and loss account as "sales".
3.1That on f acts and in law, the Id. CIT (a) has grossl y erred i n changi ng/adding from only s ec tion 68 to "section 68 /69A" wit hout gi vi ng any opportunity o f being heard.
4.That on the facts and i n law, the Id. C IT(A ) has grossly err ed in upholdi ng additions to the tune of Rs. 21,10,000/- u/s 68 of the Ac t, by tr eati ng t he "unsecured lo ans” as "une xplai ned cash c redit”.
5.That on the f acts and i n law, t he Id. CIT (A) has grossly er red i n upholdi ng ad-hoc addition t o the t une of Rs. 33,91,403/- [8% of to tal purchases amounti ng t o R s. 4,23,92,533/-] u/s 68 of the IT Act, on acc ount of alleged "unve rified purchas es ”.
6.That on the facts and i n circumstances of the case , the Id. CIT(A) has grossly er red in upholdi ng t he le vy of interest u/s 234B and C of t he Act of t o the tune of Rs. 25,81,392/- & 1,1 27/- res pectively.”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outse t submitted that the assessee is engaged in commission and trading activities in agricultural co mmod ities at Azadpur Mandi and that the disputed cash deposits arose from the business activity. It was further submitted that the unsecured loans were supported by confirmatio ns and other docume nts and that the purchases were genuine. It was contended that the mater ial fur nished by the assessee requires proper verification and that the assessee sho uld be given an effective opportunity to substantiate its claims before the Assessing Officer .
The ld. DR, on the o ther hand, while supporting the judgme nt of lower authorities has left it to the discretion o f the Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the additions involved in the present appeal are predominantly factual in nature. The assessee has furnished substantial additional evidence before the ld . C IT(A), including cash-flow details, loan confirmatio ns and purchase-related documents. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file o f the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has recorded that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjo urnment during the assessment proceedings. Considering the above facts and in the lig ht of complete non-compliance by the assessee, the ld . Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition w ithout any material having been produced or submitted on behalf of the assessee before completion of the assessment. Similar observatio ns have also been recorded in paras 2 & 3 of the assessment order, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the assessee neither submitted any response nor filed any reply. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. AR, we find it expedient, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for decid ing the issue afresh after giving an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The asse ssee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the AO within the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.