AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeals Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 28.10.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 25.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not providing the Assessee an effective opportunity for virtual hearing as mandated under Section? 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the assessment proceedings unfair and unsustainable.
2.The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,32,13,736/- as unexplained money Under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
3.That the appellant craves leave to add/ alter any/all grounds of appeal before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal.
4.That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence.
5.The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making the impugned proceedings U/s147/148/148A for the Assessment year 2013-14 whereas same is time barred U/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. Notice U/s 148 was issued on 08.06.2021.
6.The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi has passed the order dated 28.10.2025 against the Principles of Natural law and Justice and ignoring written submissions and without providing reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant.
Brief factual matrix of the case are that the assessee company M/s Fortune GSJ Inframart Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Aeren R Capital Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), received credits to the tune of Rs. 3,32,13,736 /- in the bank account no. 0344259003, maintained with Citi Bank during F.Y. 2012-13. It was noted by the Ld. AO that despite having huge credits in its above-mentioned bank account, it has been observed that the assessee company did not filed ITR for the A.Y. 2013-14. During the re-assessment proceedings, several notices/letters were issued to the assessee company but it did not make any compliance. A show cause notice was also issued to the assessee company on 04.05.2023. In reply to this notice the assessee company uploaded a written submission and two court order only and failed to upload any documents regarding source and nature of the such credits in its bank account. The ld. AO held that the assessee company has failed to explain about the source and nature of the abovementioned credits in its bank account and the entire credits in the above-mentioned bank account was treated as deemed income of the assessee company and added to total income of the assessee company as unexplained money u/s 69A. Considering the above facts, the entire amount of Rs. 3,32,13,736/- was treated as deemed income of the assessee company as unexplained money by the AO. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO and passed the ex-parte order.
The ld. Counsel however requested for one last chance and assured that compliance would now be made. However, the ld. DR argued that both the lower authorities vis the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders. It was accordingly argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and does not merit any consideration at this stage
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from the assessment order that the assessee was required to file documents/submission in support of its claim which were not provided. We have noted that the Assessing Officer had issued several notices dated 21.07.2022, 18.01.2023, 05.04.2023, 10.04.2023, 20.04.2023 and 04.05.2023, respectively, which were not complied by the assessee. We have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) had also issued notices dated 26.07.2024, 12.08.2024 and 29.08.2025 which were not admittedly complied by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to draw adverse conclusions and rejected the applications. We are conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Further, considering the non-compliance of the appellant assessee before lower authorities, this order is subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant shall file a copy of the same before the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.