AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.11.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082598927(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NFAC, for AY: 2018-19.
On hearing both sides we find that the issue involved is the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of failure of assesse firm to file return of income and the addition made @ 10% of the turnover which has been set aside by ld. CIT(A) by following relevant findings:
“5.1I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, the submissions made by the appellant, the assessment order, and all other material available on record. It is evident from the record that the assessment for AY 2018-19 has been completed ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B on best judgment basis. The appellant has not responded to any of the statutory notices issued during assessment except for filing a Nil return in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and this resulted in the addition: of Rs. 64,08,850/- as business income of the assessee. Now, during the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee is objecting to the addition of 10% of total credits in bank account as business income of the assessee.
5.2Given the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, the appellant deserves an opportunity to present all relevant evidence and explanations before the Assessing Officer. Especially considering that the new proviso to section 251(1)(a) inserted by Finance Bill, 2024, w.e.f. 01.10.2024) specifically empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside a section 144 assessment and remit it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Such a course of action is warranted in the facts of this case to ensure a proper and just determination of taxable income on merits after full consideration of all relevant material.”
At the time of hearing it was pointed out that in regard to AY: 2020-21 also in consequence to reopening assesse has furnished copy of dissolution deed and it was submitted that the business was taken over by one of the partner as proprietorship concern who has been filing return independently and the turnover reported in the bank accounts have been subject to the return filed by the proprietor. Though ld. Counsel has tried to defend the issue on merits. We find that ld. CIT(A) was correct in restoring the issue to assessing officer as the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The submissions which ld. Counsel has relied including those made for AY; 2020-21 which have been accepted by the Assessing Officer to drop the proceedings can very well be taken into account by ld. Assessing Officer and the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) suffers from no illegality which requires our interference. Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is dismissed.